Discussion:
Bob Officer is an ESTJ
(too old to reply)
Duncan
2017-02-24 23:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ

This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
or wants to know the reason "why".

He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
he thinks is creating order.

http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html

The Guardian
Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
(Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)


"They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]

ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]

The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
family, community, or work.

When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]

ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]

The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
and security. "

[ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]

Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
Bob's is being an establishment pawn.



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There
are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we
don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we
don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld


> [BOB] "Beliefs are not opinions."
>
> I think you will find that "belief" is a synonym for "opinion".
> So WTF are you trying to say idiot?

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Anon
2017-02-24 23:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>
>This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>or wants to know the reason "why".
>
>He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>he thinks is creating order.
>
>http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>
>The Guardian
>Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>(Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>
>
>"They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>
>ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>
>The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>family, community, or work.
>
> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>
>ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>
>The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>and security. "
>
>[ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>
>Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>Bob's is being an establishment pawn.




This is like how the NWO uses NGOs to infiltrate and push agendas.
Its a bit similar - one is using a person to influence and subvert,
the other is using a NGO.

There's some good info about NGOs at
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo227.htm

NGOs - Choice tools of subversion by the NWO

" Fake Human Rights and the NGO Complex
NGOs are running amok...
We don't just have NGOs; we have an actual NGO complex which is
controlled by the New World Order and is part of their psychological
operations and perception management department.

It ensures that American democracy and humanitarian interventions
(both doublespeak oxymorons) are coated with sugar to go down well.
Often, they hide behind the excuse of furthering human rights as a way
to justify their subversive operations.

Patrick Henningsen wrote an excellent article in April 2016 entitled
AN INTRODUCTION - Smart Power and The Human Rights Industrial Complex
which spells out the way these NGOs operate:

"Shaping western public perception and opinion on major
international issues is essential if major world powers are to realize
their foreign policy goals.



Not surprisingly, we can see that many of the public positions
taken by NGOs are exactly aligned with western foreign policy. In the
Balkans War of the 1990s, human rights groups supported partitioning.



In the Ukraine in 2014 and with both Syria and Yemen in 2016 they
supported regime change. In each instance NGOs function as a public
relations extension to a United Nations western member Security
Council bloc, namely the US, UK and France.



This collusion is manifest throughout the upper echelons of these
organizations whose streamlined agenda conforms through a lucrative
revolving door which exists between a cartel of western NGOs,
government and media."

The role of NGOs and human rights organizations has been pivotal in
Syria, to provide cover for the US to carry out its clear intention of
regime change:

"By framing the Syrian Conflict (2011 to present) as a "civil
war", both western media and human rights organizations did their part
in propping-up an important western foreign policy narrative.



Inaccurate and distorted, this narrative has helped shield the
US-led clandestine proxy war… [but the reality is] a US-backed
guerrilla war where Washington and Ankara, along with NATO and Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) allies, flooding Turkey and Syria with
weapons, cash, equipment, social media teams, military trainers and
foreign fighters from as a far away as Pakistan."

Source

NGOs are responsible for all those feel-good petitions that totally
misinform Westerners about some poor country that is about to get
invaded, whip up misdirected outrage and persuade people to get in
line with the exact military goals the US has already planned.

Have you noticed how may NGOs call for "No Fly Zones", "Buffer
Zones" or "Safe Zones"?



Remember the phony Stop Kony 2012 campaign?



Remember how George Soros' Avaaz called for a No Fly Zone in
Libya, to help US-NATO assassinate Gaddafi and control Libya?

A lot of people are getting played like a fiddle…"



--
Anonymous

"George Orwell understood the whistleblower’s dilemma well when he
said: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will
hate those that speak it.” And that is where the concept of cognitive
dissonance comes in, being willfully blind or ignorant when being
confronted by new truths."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-dangerous-drugs-and-drug-insured-patients/5485012

Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-and-the-money-making-business-of-medicine/5485017?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
Propaganda - nobody does it better than America
http://tinyurl.com/d5xqmra
"Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having
discussions with people who came to America from countries known for
their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east
European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the
state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these
people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and
point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite
incompetently.
If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study
American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably,
the best in the world."
Gumdrop
2017-02-25 02:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

<snip the bullshit>

Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.

Can it get any worse?
Bob Officer
2017-02-25 07:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
> <snip the bullshit>
>
> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>
> Can it get any worse?
>
>

Well, she is using a falsified personality test.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Gumdrop
2017-02-25 09:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/25/2017 2:14 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip the bullshit>
>>
>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>
>> Can it get any worse?
>
> Well, she is using a falsified personality test.

That does make her befuddlement worse.
Bob Officer
2017-02-25 14:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/25/2017 2:14 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>
>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>
>>> Can it get any worse?
>>
>> Well, she is using a falsified personality test.
>
> That does make her befuddlement worse.
>

Yes it does.

Not only is the test itself falsified and basically useless, but the
instructions for it do state plainly that one person can not take the test
for another person.

While Carole makes unfounded claims about what type of personality others
might have, her own personality of being nothing more than a schoolyard
bully, is on full display.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-03-12 23:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Feb 25, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <snip the bullshit>
> >
> > Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
> >
> > Can it get any worse?
>
> Well, she is using a falsified personality test.

Bet she altered it too.
K Wills (Shill #3)
2017-02-25 09:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
><snip the bullshit>
>
>Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>
>Can it get any worse?

You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?

--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Bob Officer
2017-02-25 14:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip the bullshit>
>>
>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>
>> Can it get any worse?
>
> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>

She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
decoded.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
For obvious reasons
2017-02-26 08:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>
>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>
>>> Can it get any worse?
>>
>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>
>
>She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>decoded.


And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.

Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.


--
For obvious reasons

Why modern healthcare is in such a shambles
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ph-miracle-for-cancer.html

1953 Fitzgerald Report - Suppressed Cancer Treatments
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppressed_cancer_treatments.htm

A conspiracy to destroy natural medicine and profit from sickness and
disease
The history of medical suppression in America can be traced back to
the Rockefeller Foundation and the rise of the American Medical
Association, led by a sociopathic, arrogant huckster named Dr.
Fishbein. Working in conspiracy to destroy natural medicine and
chiropractic medicine, these criminal institutions gave rise to
allopathic medicine which is currently responsible for the mass
killing of at least one million people per year.
http://www.naturalnews.com/052981_medical_monopoly_government_censorship_marijuana.html


Can My Doctor Get Into Big Legal Trouble by Offering Natural Health
Treatments?
http://www.anh-usa.org/readers-corner-can-doctor-get-into-trouble-offering-natural-treatments/

How Pharmaceuticals Came To Be The 4th Leading Cause Of Death In
America
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/20/how-pharmaceuticals-came-to-be-the-4th-leading-cause-of-death-in-america/

What is the Leading Cause of Death in U.S. ?
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/what-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-u-s/

"The Science of Getting It Wrong: How to Deal with False Research
Findings
Ioannidis says that researchers have become increasingly sophisticated
at acquiring large amounts of data from genomics and other studies,
and at spinning it in different ways—much like TV weathercasters
proclaiming every day a record-setting meteorological event of some
sort. As a result, he says, it is easy to come up with findings that
are "significant" in the statistical sense, yet not scientifically
valid."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-getting-it/
&
2017-02-26 12:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
<***@reasons.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>
>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>
>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>
>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>
>>She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>decoded.
>
>And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>
>Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.

How's your buddy Trump?
Busy draining the swamp for ya?
Gumdrop
2017-02-26 12:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/26/2017 3:11 AM, For obvious reasons wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>
>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>
>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>
>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>
>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>> decoded.
>
> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
> years bob?

Not nearly as many as you've had, Carole.

> I don't see you commenting on that.

All the years you've been exchanging views with Bob, and you didn't
notice that he doesn't waste time on non-issues?

> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.

How's your buddy Trump doing?
Draining the swamp quickly enough for ya?

Don't get fanciful about re-locating.
He won't let your type into the USA.
Bob Officer
2017-03-08 05:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/26/2017 3:11 AM, For obvious reasons wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>
>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>
>>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>> decoded.
>>
>> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>> years bob?
>
> Not nearly as many as you've had, Carole.

The answer is zero if Carole is concerned.

I have only posted with one name since 1985.
I felt no need to hide.

>> I don't see you commenting on that.
>
> All the years you've been exchanging views with Bob, and you didn't
> notice that he doesn't waste time on non-issues?

I try to keep on the issue and not go off chasing every shiny thing.

>> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.

Leftard?

Did someone vaccinate Carole with " some special type of stupid"?

> How's your buddy Trump doing?
> Draining the swamp quickly enough for ya?

He is taking the swamps bottom feeder and putting them in charge.

> Don't get fanciful about re-locating.
> He won't let your type into the USA.

Carole is ignorant and stupid, under Devon, she would have never attended
any school. She would have died as a child with a burst appendix under the
medical care rules Trump's HHS rules, because there would be no hospitals
or doctors.

She is a special type of stupid, isn't she?

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
&
2017-03-08 06:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2017 3:11 AM, For obvious reasons wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>>
>>>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>>> decoded.
>>>
>>> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>>> years bob?
>>
>> Not nearly as many as you've had, Carole.
>
>The answer is zero if Carole is concerned.
>
>I have only posted with one name since 1985.
>I felt no need to hide.
>
>>> I don't see you commenting on that.
>>
>> All the years you've been exchanging views with Bob, and you didn't
>> notice that he doesn't waste time on non-issues?
>
>I try to keep on the issue and not go off chasing every shiny thing.
>
>>> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.
>
>Leftard?
>
>Did someone vaccinate Carole with " some special type of stupid"?
>
>> How's your buddy Trump doing?
>> Draining the swamp quickly enough for ya?
>
>He is taking the swamps bottom feeder and putting them in charge.
>
>> Don't get fanciful about re-locating.
>> He won't let your type into the USA.
>
>Carole is ignorant and stupid, under Devon, she would have never attended
>any school. She would have died as a child with a burst appendix under the
>medical care rules Trump's HHS rules, because there would be no hospitals
>or doctors.
>
>She is a special type of stupid, isn't she?

Poor biddy needed a clue yesterday.
Lu
2017-02-27 01:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-02-26 08:11:34 +0000, For obvious reasons said:

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>
>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>
>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>
>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>
>>
>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>> decoded.
>
>
> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
> years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.

Difference between you and everybody else is that while pseudonyms are
used by several people it is usually only one at a time. How many are
you using at the same time in the same thread, now, 2, 3, 5? Another
major difference and the real give away to the state of your mental
health is that you use several at a time to carry on a conversation or
respond to another of your own nyms in a thread.

>
> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.


Lu
K Wills (Shill #3)
2017-02-27 10:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
<***@reasons.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>
>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>
>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>
>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>
>>She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>decoded.
>
>
>And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>
>Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.

Or, maybe, these other supposed socks didn't have long
conversations with themselves.
Or, maybe they weren't sock, but different people. Many people can
see you for the k00k you are, Carole. It's not an exclusive club.

--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
For obvious reasons
2017-02-27 10:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:32:59 -0600, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
><***@reasons.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>
>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>
>>>She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>>carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>>which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>>does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>>message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>>decoded.
>>
>>
>>And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>>years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>>
>>Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.
>
> Or, maybe, these other supposed socks didn't have long
>conversations with themselves.
> Or, maybe they weren't sock, but different people. Many people can
>see you for the k00k you are, Carole. It's not an exclusive club.

What a load of garbage.
I've been on usenet now for over 20 years and there have always been
heaps and heaps of socks, who regularly change their identities and
who talk to themselves or between each other. So don't shit me.


--
For obvious reasons

Why modern healthcare is in such a shambles
http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ph-miracle-for-cancer.html

1953 Fitzgerald Report - Suppressed Cancer Treatments
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppressed_cancer_treatments.htm

A conspiracy to destroy natural medicine and profit from sickness and
disease
The history of medical suppression in America can be traced back to
the Rockefeller Foundation and the rise of the American Medical
Association, led by a sociopathic, arrogant huckster named Dr.
Fishbein. Working in conspiracy to destroy natural medicine and
chiropractic medicine, these criminal institutions gave rise to
allopathic medicine which is currently responsible for the mass
killing of at least one million people per year.
http://www.naturalnews.com/052981_medical_monopoly_government_censorship_marijuana.html


Can My Doctor Get Into Big Legal Trouble by Offering Natural Health
Treatments?
http://www.anh-usa.org/readers-corner-can-doctor-get-into-trouble-offering-natural-treatments/

How Pharmaceuticals Came To Be The 4th Leading Cause Of Death In
America
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/20/how-pharmaceuticals-came-to-be-the-4th-leading-cause-of-death-in-america/

What is the Leading Cause of Death in U.S. ?
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/what-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-u-s/

"The Science of Getting It Wrong: How to Deal with False Research
Findings
Ioannidis says that researchers have become increasingly sophisticated
at acquiring large amounts of data from genomics and other studies,
and at spinning it in different ways—much like TV weathercasters
proclaiming every day a record-setting meteorological event of some
sort. As a result, he says, it is easy to come up with findings that
are "significant" in the statistical sense, yet not scientifically
valid."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-getting-it/
Gumdrop
2017-02-27 11:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/27/2017 5:57 AM, For obvious reasons wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:32:59 -0600, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
>> <***@reasons.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>>
>>>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>>> decoded.
>>>
>>>
>>> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>>> years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>>>
>>> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.
>>
>> Or, maybe, these other supposed socks didn't have long
>> conversations with themselves.
>> Or, maybe they weren't sock, but different people. Many people can
>> see you for the k00k you are, Carole. It's not an exclusive club.
>
> What a load of garbage.
> I've been on usenet now for over 20 years and there have always been
> heaps and heaps of socks, who regularly change their identities and
> who talk to themselves or between each other. So don't shit me.

It's all in your head, Carole.

In my years on usenet, you're the only one I've seen whose socks talk to
each other.

You don't fool anyone, except yourself.
Bob Officer
2017-02-27 22:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/27/2017 5:57 AM, For obvious reasons wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:32:59 -0600, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
>>> <***@reasons.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>>>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>>>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>>>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>>>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>>>> decoded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>>>> years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.
>>>
>>> Or, maybe, these other supposed socks didn't have long
>>> conversations with themselves.
>>> Or, maybe they weren't sock, but different people. Many people can
>>> see you for the k00k you are, Carole. It's not an exclusive club.
>>
>> What a load of garbage.
>> I've been on usenet now for over 20 years and there have always been
>> heaps and heaps of socks, who regularly change their identities and
>> who talk to themselves or between each other. So don't shit me.
>
> It's all in your head, Carole.
>
> In my years on usenet, you're the only one I've seen whose socks talk to
> each other.
>
> You don't fool anyone, except yourself.

I have seen it a few times.

The 1st time was "sherilyn" in an admin group showing how easily it could
be done. It was in the mid 80's and Windows based news clients were just
starting to be widely used. Google didn't exist and Deja Vu had just
started trying to archive Usenet. Back everyone knew each other and clowns
like Carole were few and far between. Access to internet and Usenet was not
all that common and was usually all professional, governmental or academia.
The use of clients installed on mainframes and shell accounts was the
majority of all access to Usenet and the internet.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
K Wills (Shill #3)
2017-02-28 09:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:57:57 +1100, For obvious reasons
<***@reasons.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:32:59 -0600, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
>><***@reasons.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>><***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>>
>>>>She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>>>carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>>>which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>>>does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>>>message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>>>decoded.
>>>
>>>And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>>>years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>>>
>>>Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.
>>
>> Or, maybe, these other supposed socks didn't have long
>>conversations with themselves.
>> Or, maybe they weren't sock, but different people. Many people can
>>see you for the k00k you are, Carole. It's not an exclusive club.
>
>What a load of garbage.

At least you warn readers about what they will soon read from
you.

>I've been on usenet now for over 20 years and there have always been
>heaps and heaps of socks, who regularly change their identities and
>who talk to themselves or between each other. So don't shit me.

Maybe so, maybe no.
I await the valid, verifiable evidence you'll present that your
claim applies in any way to the people you comment about above. If
your claim is a lie, you won't offer the requested evidence because it
will not exist.

--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Bob Officer
2017-03-01 01:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For obvious reasons <***@reasons.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:32:59 -0600, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:11:34 +1100, For obvious reasons
>> <***@reasons.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can it get any worse?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>>>>
>>>> She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>>>> carrying on a conversation. The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>>>> which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>>>> does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>>>> message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>>>> decoded.
>>>
>>>
>>> And how many pseudonyms have some of the allopathic mob had over the
>>> years bob? I don't see you commenting on that.
>>>
>>> Maybe that's because you're a pharmaceutical pawn and a leftard.
>>
>> Or, maybe, these other supposed socks didn't have long
>> conversations with themselves.
>> Or, maybe they weren't sock, but different people. Many people can
>> see you for the k00k you are, Carole. It's not an exclusive club.
>
> What a load of garbage.
> I've been on usenet now for over 20 years and there have always been
> heaps and heaps of socks, who regularly change their identities and
> who talk to themselves or between each other. So don't shit me.

What a ignorant person you are Carole.

Youn act more like a child everyday, including the school yard bully
persona you bluster with more and more.




--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
K Wills (Shill #3)
2017-02-27 10:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>K Wills (Shill #3) <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip the bullshit>
>>>
>>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>>
>>> Can it get any worse?
>>
>> You do realize Carole will take that as a challenge, right?
>
>She will have to really work hard. At one time she had a dozen socks
>carrying on a conversation.

What a sad use of free time. But, based on what I've read of her
rants, it does not come as a surprise.

>The funny thing is she was using a newsreader
>which posted the IP address in the clear. The news reader she now uses
>does, but uses the time stamp, IP address, and MAC address to generate a
>message ID. While the IP address is not in the clear, it is still can be
>decoded.

Yep. I did such to expose a guy's sock puppet in another group.

--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Duncan
2017-02-25 11:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:08:19 -0500, Gumdrop <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
><snip the bullshit>
>
>Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>
>Can it get any worse?


It already has -- Aribert Deckers using her 35th sock puppet.



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)


> [BOB] "Beliefs are not opinions."
>
> I think you will find that "belief" is a synonym for "opinion".
> So WTF are you trying to say idiot?

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Lu
2017-03-12 23:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Feb 24, 2017, Gumdrop wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip the bullshit>
>
> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>
> Can it get any worse?

I am waiting for the day when her whole thread is all and only
Carole’s socks.
Bob Officer
2017-03-13 01:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2017, Gumdrop wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> On 2/24/2017 6:16 PM, Anon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip the bullshit>
>>
>> Carole's sock Anon replying to Carole's sock Duncan.
>>
>> Can it get any worse?
>
> I am waiting for the day when her whole thread is all and only
> Carole’s socks.

As she makes larger and larger breaks with reality that day is around the
corner.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Duncan
2017-02-27 11:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>
>This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>or wants to know the reason "why".
>
>He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>he thinks is creating order.
>
>http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>
>The Guardian
>Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>(Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>
>
>"They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>
>ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>
>The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>family, community, or work.
>
> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>
>ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>
>The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>and security. "
>
>[ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>
>Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>Bob's is being an establishment pawn.


But Bob Officer is an ESTJ

Don't deny it bob.
You're the perfect establishment pawn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
"According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
communicate their opinions and expectations to others."


See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
defender.

So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.

Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
"opinion" and "belief".



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There
are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we
don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we
don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld



> [BOB] "Beliefs are not opinions."
>
> I think you will find that "belief" is a synonym for "opinion".
> So WTF are you trying to say idiot?

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Gumdrop
2017-02-27 11:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/27/2017 6:04 AM, Duncan wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>
>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>
>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>> he thinks is creating order.
>>
>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>
>> The Guardian
>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>
>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>
>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>
>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>> family, community, or work.
>>
>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>
>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>
>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>> and security. "
>>
>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>
>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>
> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>
> Don't deny it bob.
> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>
> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
> defender.
>
> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>
> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
> "opinion" and "belief".


Carole is an idiot.
Bob Officer
2017-02-27 21:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>
>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>
>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>> he thinks is creating order.
>>
>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>
>> The Guardian
>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>
>>
>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>
>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>
>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>> family, community, or work.
>>
>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>
>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>
>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>> and security. "
>>
>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>
>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.

There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.

>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>
>
> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>
> Don't deny it bob.
> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."

Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
initial premise, it a waste of time.

In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
it is entirely worthless trash.

A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed personality
types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He spent his entire life
chasing the false premise of stars and planets defining a personality at
the time of birth. His own personality concept of fixed personalities which
sort people into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two lunar nodal
points + 12 rising signs.

A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove astrology with his
famous couples study. Initial analysis show a weak correlation, the final
analysis the shows there was no astrological relationship over the length
of time a couple will remain in a relationship.

The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the human
personality does appearing to be waste of time.


> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
> defender.
>
> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>
> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
> "opinion" and "belief".
>

You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words are do not
have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use them interchangeably.


--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Duncan
2017-03-08 01:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>
>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>
>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>
>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>
>>> The Guardian
>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>
>>>
>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>
>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>
>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>> family, community, or work.
>>>
>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>
>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>
>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>> and security. "
>>>
>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>
>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>
>There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>
>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>
>>
>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>
>> Don't deny it bob.
>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>
>Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>initial premise, it a waste of time.
>
>In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>it is entirely worthless trash.

Bullshit bob.
I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
careers.

>
>A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed personality
>types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He spent his entire life
>chasing the false premise of stars and planets defining a personality at
>the time of birth. His own personality concept of fixed personalities which
>sort people into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two lunar nodal
>points + 12 rising signs.
>
>A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove astrology with his
>famous couples study. Initial analysis show a weak correlation, the final
>analysis the shows there was no astrological relationship over the length
>of time a couple will remain in a relationship.

Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are probably a
whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But once again
denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream science only
acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified, indexted and
catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream science has been
dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the dark about new
inventions that defy concepts taught in mainstream. A load of rubbish
just like mainstream media, designed to keep people ignorant. Works to
an extent but misleads in the end.

>
>The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the human
>personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>
>
>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
>> defender.
>>
>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
>> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
>> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
>> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>>
>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
>> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
>> "opinion" and "belief".


"Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
effectively the same.

Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either worked
out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief system.
They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.

Dumbarse.

>>
>
>You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words are do not
>have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use them interchangeably.



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)


> [BOB] "Beliefs are not opinions."
>
> I think you will find that "belief" is a synonym for "opinion".
> So WTF are you trying to say idiot?

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Bob Officer
2017-03-08 05:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>
>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>
>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>
>>>> The Guardian
>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>
>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>
>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>
>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>
>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>
>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>> and security. "
>>>>
>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>
>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>
>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>
>>>
>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>
>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>
>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>
>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>
> Bullshit bob.

No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.

> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".

It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base on a narrow
view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole, not mine.

The
At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.

> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
> careers.

No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web site, it
doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own personality type.

There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the University of
California where Balke challenged the use of the Myers-Briggs as a
screening tool for admission to medical school. After the famous study out
of University of Michigan was published the federal courts have outlawed
use of Myers Briggs for any purpose dealing with hiring, promotions, or
admission to schools.

The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was based
upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at birth and is
unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be false.


>>
>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed personality
>> types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He spent his entire life
>> chasing the false premise of stars and planets defining a personality at
>> the time of birth. His own personality concept of fixed personalities which
>> sort people into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two lunar nodal
>> points + 12 rising signs.
>>
>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove astrology with his
>> famous couples study. Initial analysis show a weak correlation, the final
>> analysis the shows there was no astrological relationship over the length
>> of time a couple will remain in a relationship.
>
> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are probably a
> whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But once again
> denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream science only
> acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified, indexted and
> catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream science has been
> dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the dark about new
> inventions that defy concepts taught in mainstream. A load of rubbish
> just like mainstream media, designed to keep people ignorant. Works to
> an extent but misleads in the end.

Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM which
falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to astrology.

>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the human
>> personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>
>>
>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
>>> defender.
>>>
>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
>>> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
>>> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
>>> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
>>> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
>>> "opinion" and "belief".
>
>
> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.

Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there would be
no need for two words, would there?

> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
> effectively the same.

The are not effectively the same. Both carry different connotations. That's
why there are two words not one word.

> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either worked
> out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief system.
> They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.

You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are the person
that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop pretending to be
smart, because your are not, Carole.

> Dumbarse.
>
>>>
>>
>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words are do not
>> have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use them interchangeably.
>
>

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Mo Onions
2017-03-09 11:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/8/2017 12:32 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>
>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>
>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>
>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>
>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>
>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>
>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>
>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>
>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>
>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>
>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>
>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>
>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>
>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>
>> Bullshit bob.
>
> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>
>> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
>
> It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base on a narrow
> view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole, not mine.
>
> The
> At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
> projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
> disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.
>
>> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
>> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
>> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
>> careers.
>
> No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web site, it
> doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own personality type.
>
> There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the University of
> California where Balke challenged the use of the Myers-Briggs as a
> screening tool for admission to medical school.

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bakke-v-regents-university-california-30362

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/616/The_Court_Revisits_Bakke_25_Years_Later_The_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Cases

> After the famous study out of University of Michigan was published
> the federal courts have outlawed use of Myers Briggs for any purpose
> dealing with hiring, promotions, or admission to schools.
>
> The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was
> based upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at
> birth and is unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be
> false.

https://tinyurl.com/gsatvr2

https://tinyurl.com/gljov9n

https://tinyurl.com/zgk8v3f

>>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed personality
>>> types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He spent his entire life
>>> chasing the false premise of stars and planets defining a personality at
>>> the time of birth. His own personality concept of fixed personalities which
>>> sort people into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two lunar nodal
>>> points + 12 rising signs.
>>>
>>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove astrology with his
>>> famous couples study. Initial analysis show a weak correlation, the final
>>> analysis the shows there was no astrological relationship over the length
>>> of time a couple will remain in a relationship.
>>
>> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are probably a
>> whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But once again
>> denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream science only
>> acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified, indexted and
>> catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream science has been
>> dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the dark about new
>> inventions that defy concepts taught in mainstream. A load of rubbish
>> just like mainstream media, designed to keep people ignorant. Works to
>> an extent but misleads in the end.
>
> Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM which
> falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to astrology.
>
>>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the human
>>> personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>>
>>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
>>>> defender.
>>>>
>>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
>>>> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
>>>> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
>>>> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
>>>> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
>>>> "opinion" and "belief".
>>
>> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
>
> Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there would be
> no need for two words, would there?
>
>> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
>> effectively the same.
>
> The are not effectively the same. Both carry different connotations. That's
> why there are two words not one word.
>
>> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either worked
>> out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
>> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief system.
>> They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.
>
> You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are the person
> that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop pretending to be
> smart, because your are not, Carole.
>
>> Dumbarse.
>>
>>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words are do not
>>> have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use them interchangeably.
Mo Onions
2017-03-09 12:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/9/2017 6:50 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 12:32 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
>>>>>> clear
>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
>>>>>> roles.
>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely
>>>>>> talented at
>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
>>>>>> interacting
>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
>>>>>> do.
>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views
>>>>>> shaped by
>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>
>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>
>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
>>>> birth,
>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>> stated,
>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>
>>> Bullshit bob.
>>
>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>
>>> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
>>
>> It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base on a narrow
>> view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole, not mine.
>>
>> The
>> At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
>> projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
>> disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.
>>
>>> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
>>> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
>>> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
>>> careers.
>>
>> No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web
>> site, it
>> doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own personality type.
>>
>> There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the
>> University of
>> California where Balke challenged the use of the Myers-Briggs as a
>> screening tool for admission to medical school.
>
> http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bakke-v-regents-university-california-30362
>
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
>
>
> http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/616/The_Court_Revisits_Bakke_25_Years_Later_The_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Cases
>
>
>> After the famous study out of University of Michigan was published
>> the federal courts have outlawed use of Myers Briggs for any purpose
>> dealing with hiring, promotions, or admission to schools.
>>
>> The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was
>> based upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at
>> birth and is unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be
>> false.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/gsatvr2
>
> https://tinyurl.com/gljov9n
>
> https://tinyurl.com/zgk8v3f

correction:

https://tinyurl.com/jql5ez8

or

http://mttlr.org/2008/03/19/the-ada-and-personality-testing-–-the-7th-and-8th-circuit-split-on-the-permissibility-of-the-mmpi-in-pre-offer-of-employment-screening/

>>>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed
>>>> personality
>>>> types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He spent his entire life
>>>> chasing the false premise of stars and planets defining a
>>>> personality at
>>>> the time of birth. His own personality concept of fixed
>>>> personalities which
>>>> sort people into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a
>>>> more
>>>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two lunar nodal
>>>> points + 12 rising signs.
>>>>
>>>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove astrology
>>>> with his
>>>> famous couples study. Initial analysis show a weak correlation, the
>>>> final
>>>> analysis the shows there was no astrological relationship over the
>>>> length
>>>> of time a couple will remain in a relationship.
>>>
>>> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are probably a
>>> whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But once again
>>> denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream science only
>>> acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified, indexted and
>>> catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream science has been
>>> dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the dark about new
>>> inventions that defy concepts taught in mainstream. A load of rubbish
>>> just like mainstream media, designed to keep people ignorant. Works to
>>> an extent but misleads in the end.
>>
>> Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM which
>> falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to astrology.
>>
>>>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the human
>>>> personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>>>
>>>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
>>>>> defender.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
>>>>> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
>>>>> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
>>>>> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
>>>>> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
>>>>> "opinion" and "belief".
>>>
>>> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
>>
>> Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there
>> would be
>> no need for two words, would there?
>>
>>> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
>>> effectively the same.
>>
>> The are not effectively the same. Both carry different connotations.
>> That's
>> why there are two words not one word.
>>
>>> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either worked
>>> out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
>>> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief system.
>>> They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.
>>
>> You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are the
>> person
>> that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop pretending to be
>> smart, because your are not, Carole.
>>
>>> Dumbarse.
>>>
>>>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words are do
>>>> not
>>>> have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use them
>>>> interchangeably.
>
Mo Onions
2017-03-09 12:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/9/2017 6:50 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 12:32 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
>>>>>> clear
>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
>>>>>> roles.
>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely
>>>>>> talented at
>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
>>>>>> interacting
>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
>>>>>> do.
>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views
>>>>>> shaped by
>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>
>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>
>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
>>>> birth,
>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>> stated,
>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>
>>> Bullshit bob.
>>
>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>
>>> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
>>
>> It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base on a narrow
>> view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole, not mine.
>>
>> The
>> At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
>> projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
>> disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.
>>
>>> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
>>> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
>>> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
>>> careers.
>>
>> No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web
>> site, it doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own
>> personality type.
>>
>> There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the
>> University of California where Balke challenged the use of the
>> Myers-Briggs as a screening tool for admission to medical school.
>
> http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bakke-v-regents-university-california-30362
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
>
> http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/616/The_Court_Revisits_Bakke_25_Years_Later_The_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Cases
>
>> After the famous study out of University of Michigan was published
>> the federal courts have outlawed use of Myers Briggs for any purpose
>> dealing with hiring, promotions, or admission to schools.
>>
>> The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was
>> based upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at
>> birth and is unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be
>> false.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/gsatvr2
>
> https://tinyurl.com/gljov9n
>
> https://tinyurl.com/zgk8v3f

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/146/612/513947/

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1486883.html

>>>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed
>>>> personality types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He
>>>> spent his entire life chasing the false premise of stars and
>>>> planets defining a personality at the time of birth. His own
>>>> personality concept of fixed personalities which sort people
>>>> into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>>>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two
>>>> lunar nodal points + 12 rising signs.
>>>>
>>>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove
>>>> astrology with his famous couples study. Initial analysis show
>>>> a weak correlation, the final analysis the shows there was no
>>>> astrological relationship over the length of time a couple will
>>>> remain in a relationship.
>>>
>>> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are
>>> probably a whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But
>>> once again denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream
>>> science only acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified,
>>> indexted and catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream
>>> science has been dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the
>>> dark about new inventions that defy concepts taught in
>>> mainstream. A load of rubbish just like mainstream media,
>>> designed to keep people ignorant. Works to an extent but misleads
>>> in the end.
>>
>> Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM
>> which falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to
>> astrology.
>>
>>>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the
>>>> human personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>>>
>>>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner
>>>>> ...a defender.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending
>>>>> its rules and procedures for the sake of smooth running of
>>>>> society. When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you
>>>>> don't go on defending it ...you question it and agitate for
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser. He doesn't even understand the
>>>>> difference or sameness of words "opinion" and "belief".
>>>
>>> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
>>
>> Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there
>> would be no need for two words, would there?
>>
>>> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
>>> effectively the same.
>>
>> The are not effectively the same. Both carry different
>> connotations. That's why there are two words not one word.
>>
>>> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either
>>> worked out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
>>> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief
>>> system. They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.
>>
>> You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are
>> the person that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop
>> pretending to be smart, because your are not, Carole.
>>
>>> Dumbarse.
>>>
>>>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words
>>>> are do not have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use
>>>> them interchangeably.
Mo Onions
2017-03-09 12:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/9/2017 7:04 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 6:50 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
>> On 3/8/2017 12:32 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running
>>>>>>> smoothly
>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
>>>>>>> roles.
>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely
>>>>>>> talented at
>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is
>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
>>>>>>> interacting
>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from
>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these
>>>>>>> goals.
>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
>>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views
>>>>>>> shaped by
>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who
>>>>>> dedicate
>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
>>>>> birth,
>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>>> stated,
>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>
>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire
>>> premise
>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>>
>>>> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
>>>
>>> It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base on a
>>> narrow
>>> view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole, not mine.
>>>
>>> The
>>> At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
>>> projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
>>> disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.
>>>
>>>> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
>>>> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
>>>> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
>>>> careers.
>>>
>>> No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web
>>> site, it doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own
>>> personality type.
>>>
>>> There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the
>>> University of California where Balke challenged the use of the
>>> Myers-Briggs as a screening tool for admission to medical school.
>>
>> http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bakke-v-regents-university-california-30362
>>
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
>>
>>
>> http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/616/The_Court_Revisits_Bakke_25_Years_Later_The_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Cases
>>
>>
>>> After the famous study out of University of Michigan was published
>>> the federal courts have outlawed use of Myers Briggs for any purpose
>>> dealing with hiring, promotions, or admission to schools.
>>>
>>> The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was
>>> based upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at
>>> birth and is unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be
>>> false.
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/gsatvr2
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/gljov9n
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/zgk8v3f
>
> http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/146/612/513947/
>
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1486883.html

Correction:
The above two cited cases involved the MMPI, not the MBTI.

>>>>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed
>>>>> personality types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He
>>>>> spent his entire life chasing the false premise of stars and
>>>>> planets defining a personality at the time of birth. His own
>>>>> personality concept of fixed personalities which sort people
>>>>> into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>>>>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two
>>>>> lunar nodal points + 12 rising signs.
>>>>>
>>>>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove
>>>>> astrology with his famous couples study. Initial analysis show
>>>>> a weak correlation, the final analysis the shows there was no
>>>>> astrological relationship over the length of time a couple will
>>>>> remain in a relationship.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are
>>>> probably a whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But
>>>> once again denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream
>>>> science only acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified,
>>>> indexted and catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream
>>>> science has been dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the
>>>> dark about new inventions that defy concepts taught in
>>>> mainstream. A load of rubbish just like mainstream media,
>>>> designed to keep people ignorant. Works to an extent but misleads
>>>> in the end.
>>>
>>> Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM
>>> which falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to
>>> astrology.
>>>
>>>>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the
>>>>> human personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>>>>
>>>>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner
>>>>>> ...a defender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending
>>>>>> its rules and procedures for the sake of smooth running of
>>>>>> society. When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you
>>>>>> don't go on defending it ...you question it and agitate for
>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser. He doesn't even understand the
>>>>>> difference or sameness of words "opinion" and "belief".
>>>>
>>>> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
>>>
>>> Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there
>>> would be no need for two words, would there?
>>>
>>>> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
>>>> effectively the same.
>>>
>>> The are not effectively the same. Both carry different
>>> connotations. That's why there are two words not one word.
>>>
>>>> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either
>>>> worked out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
>>>> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief
>>>> system. They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.
>>>
>>> You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are
>>> the person that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop
>>> pretending to be smart, because your are not, Carole.
>>>
>>>> Dumbarse.
>>>>
>>>>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words
>>>>> are do not have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use
>>>>> them interchangeably.
>
Mo Onions
2017-03-09 12:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/9/2017 7:14 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 7:04 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
>> On 3/9/2017 6:50 AM, Mo Onions wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2017 12:32 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest
>>>>>>>> obeying orders from the system. He's not a thinker, or
>>>>>>>> one who looks for cause and effect, or wants to know
>>>>>>>> the reason "why".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the
>>>>>>>> establishment, which he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly
>>>>>>>> scanning their personal environment to make sure that
>>>>>>>> everything is running smoothly and systematically.
>>>>>>>> **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear set
>>>>>>>> of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of
>>>>>>>> others, and have no patience or understanding of
>>>>>>>> individuals who do not value these systems. [So if the
>>>>>>>> system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe
>>>>>>>> the system is correct and anybody who questions it is
>>>>>>>> wrong.]]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear
>>>>>>>> vision of the way that things should be, that they
>>>>>>>> naturally step into leadership roles. They are
>>>>>>>> self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely
>>>>>>>> talented at devising systems and plans for action, and
>>>>>>>> at being able to see what steps need to be taken to
>>>>>>>> complete a specific task. They can sometimes be very
>>>>>>>> demanding and critical, because they have such
>>>>>>>> strongly held beliefs, and are likely to express
>>>>>>>> themselves without reserve if they feel someone isn't
>>>>>>>> meeting their standards. But at least their expressions
>>>>>>>> can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is
>>>>>>>> extremely straight-forward and honest. [But also can be
>>>>>>>> very stupid]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the
>>>>>>>> community. He or she takes their commitments seriously,
>>>>>>>> and follows their own standards of "good citizenship"
>>>>>>>> to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting with people, and
>>>>>>>> likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and fun
>>>>>>>> at social events, especially activities which are
>>>>>>>> focused on the family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels
>>>>>>>> isolated from others. They feel as if they are
>>>>>>>> misunderstood and undervalued, and that their efforts
>>>>>>>> are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is
>>>>>>>> very verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing
>>>>>>>> themself, when under stress they have a hard time
>>>>>>>> putting their feelings into words and communicating
>>>>>>>> them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from
>>>>>>>> lying]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else,
>>>>>>>> and feel obligated to do all that they can to enhance
>>>>>>>> and promote these goals. They will mow the lawn, vote,
>>>>>>>> join the PTA, attend home owners association meetings,
>>>>>>>> and generally do anything that they can to promote
>>>>>>>> personal and social security. [So good but yet so
>>>>>>>> misguided]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost
>>>>>>>> everything that they do. They will do everything that
>>>>>>>> they think should be done in their job, marriage, and
>>>>>>>> community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable.
>>>>>>>> While the ESTJ will dutifully do everything that is
>>>>>>>> important to work towards a particular cause or goal,
>>>>>>>> they might not naturally see or value the importance of
>>>>>>>> goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of
>>>>>>>> such goals to practical concerns, you can bet that
>>>>>>>> they'll put every effort into understanding them and
>>>>>>>> incorporating them into their quest for clarity and
>>>>>>>> security. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're
>>>>>>>> leading others astray. In their zeal to get everybody
>>>>>>>> on board to do the right thing they don't always see
>>>>>>>> that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an
>>>>>>>> ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals
>>>>>>> who dedicate themselves to maintaining the institutions
>>>>>>> behind a smooth-running society. ***They are defenders of
>>>>>>> the status quo and strong believers in rules and
>>>>>>> procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely
>>>>>> falsified because it is entered based on the concept of a
>>>>>> fixed personality at birth, citing any thing other than
>>>>>> someone with new evidence to support the initial premise,
>>>>>> it a waste of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering
>>>>>> Keirsey has stated, it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>
>>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The
>>>> entire premise of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been
>>>> completely falsified. It,was posted here and you took part in
>>>> the discussion.
>>>>
>>>>> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base
>>>> on a narrow view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole,
>>>> not mine.
>>>>
>>>> The
>>>> At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
>>>> projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
>>>> disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.
>>>>
>>>>> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
>>>>> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
>>>>> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
>>>>> careers.
>>>>
>>>> No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web
>>>> site, it doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own
>>>> personality type.
>>>>
>>>> There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the
>>>> University of California where Balke challenged the use of the
>>>> Myers-Briggs as a screening tool for admission to medical school.
>>>
>>> http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bakke-v-regents-university-california-30362
>>>
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
>>>
>>> http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/616/The_Court_Revisits_Bakke_25_Years_Later_The_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Cases
>>>
>>>> After the famous study out of University of Michigan was published
>>>> the federal courts have outlawed use of Myers Briggs for any purpose
>>>> dealing with hiring, promotions, or admission to schools.
>>>>
>>>> The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was
>>>> based upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at
>>>> birth and is unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/gsatvr2
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/gljov9n
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/zgk8v3f
>>
>> http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/146/612/513947/
>>
>> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1486883.html
>
> Correction:
> The above two cited cases involved the MMPI, not the MBTI.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543063004467

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/00346543063004467


>>>>>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed
>>>>>> personality types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He
>>>>>> spent his entire life chasing the false premise of stars and
>>>>>> planets defining a personality at the time of birth. His own
>>>>>> personality concept of fixed personalities which sort people
>>>>>> into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>>>>>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two
>>>>>> lunar nodal points + 12 rising signs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove
>>>>>> astrology with his famous couples study. Initial analysis show
>>>>>> a weak correlation, the final analysis the shows there was no
>>>>>> astrological relationship over the length of time a couple will
>>>>>> remain in a relationship.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are
>>>>> probably a whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But
>>>>> once again denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream
>>>>> science only acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified,
>>>>> indexted and catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream
>>>>> science has been dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the
>>>>> dark about new inventions that defy concepts taught in
>>>>> mainstream. A load of rubbish just like mainstream media,
>>>>> designed to keep people ignorant. Works to an extent but misleads
>>>>> in the end.
>>>>
>>>> Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM
>>>> which falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to
>>>> astrology.
>>>>
>>>>>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the
>>>>>> human personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner
>>>>>>> ...a defender.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending
>>>>>>> its rules and procedures for the sake of smooth running of
>>>>>>> society. When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you
>>>>>>> don't go on defending it ...you question it and agitate for
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser. He doesn't even understand the
>>>>>>> difference or sameness of words "opinion" and "belief".
>>>>>
>>>>> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there
>>>> would be no need for two words, would there?
>>>>
>>>>> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
>>>>> effectively the same.
>>>>
>>>> The are not effectively the same. Both carry different
>>>> connotations. That's why there are two words not one word.
>>>>
>>>>> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either
>>>>> worked out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
>>>>> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief
>>>>> system. They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.
>>>>
>>>> You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are
>>>> the person that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop
>>>> pretending to be smart, because your are not, Carole.
>>>>
>>>>> Dumbarse.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words
>>>>>> are do not have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use
>>>>>> them interchangeably.
Bob Officer
2017-03-09 22:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mo Onions <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 12:32 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>
>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>
>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>
>>> Bullshit bob.
>>
>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>
>>> I can go to wikipedia, look up ESTJ and it fits you to a "T".
>>
>> It doesn't mean anyth no Carole. You believe it fits me, base on a narrow
>> view controlled by your bias. Your bias, Carole, not mine.
>>
>> The
>> At means what you are doing is called a classic case of psychological
>> projection. You are taking your own problems, psychosis, and mental
>> disorders and projecting those faults of your own onto other people.
>>
>>> You can deny all you want, but "denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
>>> While it might suit you to deny, there are a lot of vocational
>>> psychologists who use the myer briggs system to find suitability for
>>> careers.
>>
>> No in California or the US. Myers-Briggs even admits on their,web site, it
>> doesn't matter what the test results are pick your own personality type.
>>
>> There was a famous case in the 1980s IIRC it was Balke vs the University of
>> California where Balke challenged the use of the Myers-Briggs as a
>> screening tool for admission to medical school.
>
> http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bakke-v-regents-university-california-30362
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
>
> http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/616/The_Court_Revisits_Bakke_25_Years_Later_The_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Cases
>
>> After the famous study out of University of Michigan was published
>> the federal courts have outlawed use of Myers Briggs for any purpose
>> dealing with hiring, promotions, or admission to schools.
>>
>> The UoM study actually falsified the premise which Myers-Briggs was
>> based upon. That false assumption that "personality" is fixed at
>> birth and is unchangeable was shown beyond a shadow of doubt to be
>> false.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/gsatvr2
>
> https://tinyurl.com/gljov9n
>
> https://tinyurl.com/zgk8v3f

Keep those links handy, in as little as a few days Carole will again
attempt to revisit this personal issue of hers, and project her own
personality on others. ( that is exactly what is called psychological
projection )


>>>> A side point Jung who came up with the entire concept of fixed personality
>>>> types was nothing but a failed astrologer. He spent his entire life
>>>> chasing the false premise of stars and planets defining a personality at
>>>> the time of birth. His own personality concept of fixed personalities which
>>>> sort people into one of sixteen bins. Astrology sorted people into a more
>>>> complex matrix made up of 12 signs + 12 lunar houses + two lunar nodal
>>>> points + 12 rising signs.
>>>>
>>>> A second side point Jung actually did more to disprove astrology with his
>>>> famous couples study. Initial analysis show a weak correlation, the final
>>>> analysis the shows there was no astrological relationship over the length
>>>> of time a couple will remain in a relationship.
>>>
>>> Depends on the skill of the astrologer partly and there are probably a
>>> whole heap of other factors that go into the mix. But once again
>>> denial doesn't make it so. Just because mainstream science only
>>> acknowledges that which can be measures, quantified, indexted and
>>> catalogued, doesn't mean anything since mainstream science has been
>>> dumbed down for the masses to keep them in the dark about new
>>> inventions that defy concepts taught in mainstream. A load of rubbish
>>> just like mainstream media, designed to keep people ignorant. Works to
>>> an extent but misleads in the end.
>>
>> Astrology is bullshit Carole. Again the same study out of UoM which
>> falsified the concept of fixed personalities also applies to astrology.
>>
>>>> The fixation on research expecting to be able to predict the human
>>>> personality does appearing to be waste of time.
>>>>
>>>>> See? ...Bob is defender of the status quo ...not a questioner ...a
>>>>> defender.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if the system is totally stuffed he will go on defending its rules
>>>>> and procedures for the sake of smooth running of society.
>>>>> When the system is broke or hopelessly corrupt, you don't go on
>>>>> defending it ...you question it and agitate for change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusion: Bob is a loser.
>>>>> He doesn't even understand the difference or sameness of words
>>>>> "opinion" and "belief".
>>>
>>> "Opinion" and "belief" are virtually the same thing.
>>
>> Virtually? No they are not virtually the same things. If so there would be
>> no need for two words, would there?
>>
>>> I realise they are used in a different context, but they are
>>> effectively the same.
>>
>> The are not effectively the same. Both carry different connotations. That's
>> why there are two words not one word.
>>
>>> Your belief system is your opinion, the opinion you have either worked
>>> out for yourself or has been imposed on you by others.
>>> Your opinion is yours only and is forms part of your belief system.
>>> They are interchangeable for all practical purposes.
>>
>> You been told by a great number of people you are wrong. You are the person
>> that barely passed your English exit examination. Stop pretending to be
>> smart, because your are not, Carole.
>>
>>> Dumbarse.
>>>
>>>> You been told in multiple groups you are wrong. The two words are do not
>>>> have the same meaning. Only the ignorant blindly use them interchangeably.
>
>



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Enquiring minds want to know
2017-03-09 23:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>
>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>
>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>
>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>
>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>
>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>
>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>
>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>
>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>
>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>
>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>
>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>
>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>
>> Bullshit bob.
>
>No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.

Bullshit bob.

Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
scientific testing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth

The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.

This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
and dictate what is and what isn't true.
Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
establishment principle.

Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
sources doesn't make something true.



--
Enquiring minds want to know

http://www.thebigcancerlie.com/
""As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a
serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to
avoid doctors and hospitals and learn nutrition, herbal medicine and
other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to
have a naturopathic physician available." Dr Allan Greenberg

https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/autismenvironmental/
"When Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute
Collins stated:- "Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes,
childhood asthma,
obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool
as those changes take much more time to occur."

'The corporation' (2003) quotes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/quotes


Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person
Should Know ...
http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

MEDIA MIND CONTROL , DISINFORMATION AND ATTACKS
http://www.arkenterprises.com/disinfo.html

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page4.htm

Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."
Bob Officer
2017-03-12 18:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Enquiring minds want to know <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>
>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>
>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>
>>> Bullshit bob.
>>
>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>
> Bullshit bob.
>
> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?

Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
completely ignored.

One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not
as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
the millions of people available.

Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
effect in statistical studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012

Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
it?

Cite
In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
/cite

Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?

Cite
The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
but not for those with objective outcomes.
/cite
more evidence that the placebo effect is real.

Cite
For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
(pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
/cite

Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.

It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
studies data.

To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.



> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
> scientific testing.

It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
Carole.

>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>
> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>
> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> establishment principle.
>
> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> sources doesn't make something true.

Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
are.

It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.

Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
becomes in parlor games for amusement only




--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-03-13 14:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
> > > > > > > the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
> > > > > > > or wants to know the reason "why".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
> > > > > > > he thinks is creating order.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Guardian
> > > > > > > Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
> > > > > > > (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
> > > > > > > personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
> > > > > > > and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
> > > > > > > set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
> > > > > > > no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
> > > > > > > systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
> > > > > > > because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
> > > > > > > correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
> > > > > > > that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
> > > > > > > They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
> > > > > > > devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
> > > > > > > steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
> > > > > > > be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
> > > > > > > beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
> > > > > > > feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
> > > > > > > expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
> > > > > > > straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
> > > > > > > or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
> > > > > > > standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
> > > > > > > with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
> > > > > > > fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
> > > > > > > family, community, or work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
> > > > > > > They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
> > > > > > > efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
> > > > > > > verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
> > > > > > > stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
> > > > > > > communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
> > > > > > > wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
> > > > > > > obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
> > > > > > > They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
> > > > > > > association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
> > > > > > > promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
> > > > > > > They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
> > > > > > > marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
> > > > > > > conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
> > > > > > > will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
> > > > > > > particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
> > > > > > > importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
> > > > > > > However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
> > > > > > > practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
> > > > > > > understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
> > > > > > > and security. "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
> > > > > > > astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
> > > > > > > they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
> > > > > > > unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't deny it bob.
> > > > > > You're the perfect establishment pawn.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
> > > > > > "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
> > > > > > themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
> > > > > > society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
> > > > > > in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
> > > > > > communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
> > > > > because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
> > > > > birth,
> > > > > citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
> > > > > initial premise, it a waste of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
> > > > > stated,
> > > > > it is entirely worthless trash.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit bob.
> > >
> > > No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
> > > of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
> > > It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
> >
> > Bullshit bob.
> >
> > Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>
> Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
> misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
> examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
> completely ignored.
> One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not

> as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
> noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
> random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
> Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
> effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
> pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
> article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
> well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
> press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
> inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
> data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
> million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
> the millions of people available.
>
> Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
> Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
> claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
> percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
> effect in statistical studies.
>
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>
> Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
> it?
>
> Cite
> In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
> effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
> /cite
>
> Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
>
> Cite
> The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
> subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
> but not for those with objective outcomes.
> /cite
> more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>
> Cite
> For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
> (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
> between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
> interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
> /cite
>
> Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>
> It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
> conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
> abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
> exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
> studies data.
>
> To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
> study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
> buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.

My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they gave me
will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a sugar
pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day every
day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I am
wrong on this?????
>
>
> > Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
> > scientific testing.
>
> It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
> Carole.
>
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-s
> > aying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> >
> > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> >
> > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > establishment principle.
> >
> > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > sources doesn't make something true.
>
> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
> are.
>
> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>
> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
> becomes in parlor games for amusement only

Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
Bob Officer
2017-03-14 05:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
>>>>>> birth,
>>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>>>> stated,
>>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>
>>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>>
>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>
>>> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?

Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.

>> Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
>> misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
>> examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
>> completely ignored.
>> One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not
>
>> as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
>> noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
>> random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
>> Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
>> effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
>> pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
>> article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
>> well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
>> press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
>> inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
>> data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
>> million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
>> the millions of people available.
>>
>> Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
>> Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
>> claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
>> percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
>> effect in statistical studies.
>>
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>>
>> Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
>> it?
>>
>> Cite
>> In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
>> effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
>> /cite
>>
>> Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
>>
>> Cite
>> The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
>> subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
>> but not for those with objective outcomes.
>> /cite
>> more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>>
>> Cite
>> For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
>> (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
>> between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
>> interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
>> /cite
>>
>> Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>>
>> It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
>> conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
>> abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
>> exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
>> studies data.
>>
>> To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
>> study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
>> buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
>
> My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
> measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they gave me
> will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a sugar
> pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day every
> day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I am
> wrong on this?????

And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
the time.

>>> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
>>> scientific testing.
>>
>> It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
>> Carole.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-s
>>> aying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>
>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>
>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>> establishment principle.
>>>
>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>
>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>> are.
>>
>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>
>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>
> Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)

I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time. He
was visiting his dad over in NJ.

I am listen to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as they
could be.



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-03-15 01:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 14, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
> > > > > > > > > the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
> > > > > > > > > effect,
> > > > > > > > > or wants to know the reason "why".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > he thinks is creating order.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Guardian
> > > > > > > > > Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
> > > > > > > > > (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
> > > > > > > > > personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
> > > > > > > > > and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
> > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
> > > > > > > > > systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
> > > > > > > > > because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
> > > > > > > > > correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
> > > > > > > > > roles.
> > > > > > > > > They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
> > > > > > > > > steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
> > > > > > > > > sometimes
> > > > > > > > > be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
> > > > > > > > > beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
> > > > > > > > > feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
> > > > > > > > > expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
> > > > > > > > > straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
> > > > > > > > > or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
> > > > > > > > > standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
> > > > > > > > > interacting
> > > > > > > > > with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
> > > > > > > > > fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
> > > > > > > > > family, community, or work.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
> > > > > > > > > They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
> > > > > > > > > verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
> > > > > > > > > stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
> > > > > > > > > communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
> > > > > > > > > wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
> > > > > > > > > obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
> > > > > > > > > They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
> > > > > > > > > association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
> > > > > > > > > promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
> > > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
> > > > > > > > > marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
> > > > > > > > > conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
> > > > > > > > > particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
> > > > > > > > > importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
> > > > > > > > > However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
> > > > > > > > > practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
> > > > > > > > > understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
> > > > > > > > > clarity
> > > > > > > > > and security. "
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
> > > > > > > > > astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
> > > > > > > > > they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don't deny it bob.
> > > > > > > > You're the perfect establishment pawn.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
> > > > > > > > "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
> > > > > > > > themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
> > > > > > > > society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
> > > > > > > > in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
> > > > > > > > communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
> > > > > > > because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
> > > > > > > birth,
> > > > > > > citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
> > > > > > > initial premise, it a waste of time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
> > > > > > > stated,
> > > > > > > it is entirely worthless trash.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bullshit bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
> > > > > of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
> > > > > It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit bob.
> > > >
> > > > Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>
> Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
> else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.

Not until you pointed it out but then it is quite normal for her to do that
when she is loosing. Usually it is name calling though.

>
>
> > > Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
> > > misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
> > > examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
> > > completely ignored.
> > > One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not
> >
> > > as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
> > > noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
> > > random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
> > > Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
> > > effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
> > > pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
> > > article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
> > > well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
> > > press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
> > > inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
> > > data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
> > > million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
> > > the millions of people available.
> > >
> > > Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
> > > Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
> > > claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
> > > percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
> > > effect in statistical studies.
> > >
> > >
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
> > >
> > > Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
> > > it?
> > >
> > > Cite
> > > In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
> > > effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
> > > /cite
> > >
> > > Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Cite
> > > The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
> > > subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
> > > but not for those with objective outcomes.
> > > /cite
> > > more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
> > >
> > > Cite
> > > For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
> > > (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
> > > between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
> > > interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
> > > /cite
> > >
> > > Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
> > >
> > > It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
> > > conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
> > > abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
> > > exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
> > > studies data.
> > >
> > > To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
> > > study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
> > > buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
> >
> > My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
> > measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they gave me
> > will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a sugar
> > pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day every
> > day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I am
> > wrong on this?????
>
> And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
> the time.
>
> > > > Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
> > > > scientific testing.
> > >
> > > It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
> > > Carole.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect
> > > > -s
> > > > aying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > >
> > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > establishment principle.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > >
> > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
> > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
> > > and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
> > > are.
> > >
> > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
> > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > >
> > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
> > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> >
> > Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
>
> I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time. He
> was visiting his dad over in NJ.

We did get a bit of snow. I was snowed in earlier. I couldn’t open the
front or back door. One of my neighbors shoveled the front walk up to the
door for me. It is really a weird feeling being trapped in your house. Glad
you nephew got out of here in time.
>
>
> I am listen to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as they
> could be.
Bob Officer
2017-03-15 23:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
>>>>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
>>>>>>>>>> roles.
>>>>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
>>>>>>>>>> interacting
>>>>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
>>>>>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
>>>>>>>> birth,
>>>>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>>>>>> stated,
>>>>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>>>>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>>>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>>
>> Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
>> else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.
>
> Not until you pointed it out but then it is quite normal for her to do that
> when she is loosing. Usually it is name calling though.

The group usually see the name calling as a form of distract from the shift
in direction of the thread. It has been abuse so often is seems everyone is
used to it.

I once thought is was a lack of attention span sort of an form of adult
attention deficit disorder, but now see it for a means of distraction when
she would otherwise admit being just plain wrong.

>>>> Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
>>>> misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
>>>> examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
>>>> completely ignored.
>>>> One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not
>>>
>>>> as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
>>>> noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
>>>> random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
>>>> Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
>>>> effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
>>>> pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
>>>> article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
>>>> well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
>>>> press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
>>>> inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
>>>> data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
>>>> million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
>>>> the millions of people available.
>>>>
>>>> Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
>>>> Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
>>>> claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
>>>> percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
>>>> effect in statistical studies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>>>>
>>>> Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> Cite
>>>> In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
>>>> effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
>>>> /cite
>>>>
>>>> Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Cite
>>>> The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
>>>> subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
>>>> but not for those with objective outcomes.
>>>> /cite
>>>> more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>>>>
>>>> Cite
>>>> For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
>>>> (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
>>>> between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
>>>> interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
>>>> /cite
>>>>
>>>> Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>>>>
>>>> It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
>>>> conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
>>>> abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
>>>> exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
>>>> studies data.
>>>>
>>>> To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
>>>> study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
>>>> buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
>>> measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they gave me
>>> will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a sugar
>>> pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day every
>>> day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I am
>>> wrong on this?????
>>
>> And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
>> the time.
>>
>>>>> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
>>>>> scientific testing.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
>>>> Carole.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect
>>>>> -s
>>>>> aying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>
>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>
>>> Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
>>
>> I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time. He
>> was visiting his dad over in NJ.
>
> We did get a bit of snow. I was snowed in earlier. I couldn’t open the
> front or back door. One of my neighbors shoveled the front walk up to the
> door for me. It is really a weird feeling being trapped in your house. Glad
> you nephew got out of here in time.

I am too, he has a 10 month old baby with them and wouldn't want to see my
ggniece snowed in.

>> I am listen to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as they
>> could be.

Looks like being prepared worked. Areas are still digging out there, some
places got harder than others. Global warming has put lots of water vapor
into the air that why the snowfall is so heavy. Even here we are having
rain storms which are carrying 20-30 percent more water than normal. Some
spots in the mountains have about 250 percent of the normal snow pack and
the water content seems to be more. We have have several small levee
breeches already and they were quickly patched. One area had to evacuate
nearly 750,000 people because of a earth filled dam was questionable
condition. There was some damage to the normal spillway which was never
used before and they had an emergency spillway which had a partial failure.
Touch and go for a while. But all it well now and the normal spillway was
patched up and ok to use. The condition is being watched, and people were
back in their homes after a week.





--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-03-16 01:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 15, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
> > > > > > > > > > > effect,
> > > > > > > > > > > or wants to know the reason "why".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > he thinks is creating order.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The Guardian
> > > > > > > > > > > Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
> > > > > > > > > > > (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
> > > > > > > > > > > personal environment to make sure that everything is running
> > > > > > > > > > > smoothly
> > > > > > > > > > > and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
> > > > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
> > > > > > > > > > > systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
> > > > > > > > > > > correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
> > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
> > > > > > > > > > > roles.
> > > > > > > > > > > They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
> > > > > > > > > > > sometimes
> > > > > > > > > > > be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly
> > > > > > > > > > > held
> > > > > > > > > > > beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if
> > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
> > > > > > > > > > > expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is
> > > > > > > > > > > extremely
> > > > > > > > > > > straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > He
> > > > > > > > > > > or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
> > > > > > > > > > > standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
> > > > > > > > > > > interacting
> > > > > > > > > > > with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > family, community, or work.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from
> > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
> > > > > > > > > > > verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
> > > > > > > > > > > stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
> > > > > > > > > > > communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
> > > > > > > > > > > wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
> > > > > > > > > > > obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these
> > > > > > > > > > > goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
> > > > > > > > > > > association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
> > > > > > > > > > > promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so
> > > > > > > > > > > misguided]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
> > > > > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > > > They will do everything that they think should be done in their
> > > > > > > > > > > job,
> > > > > > > > > > > marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
> > > > > > > > > > > conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > > will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
> > > > > > > > > > > particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
> > > > > > > > > > > importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
> > > > > > > > > > > However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
> > > > > > > > > > > practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
> > > > > > > > > > > clarity
> > > > > > > > > > > and security. "
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
> > > > > > > > > > > astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right
> > > > > > > > > > > thing
> > > > > > > > > > > they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior
> > > > > > > > > > > agenda.]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Don't deny it bob.
> > > > > > > > > > You're the perfect establishment pawn.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who
> > > > > > > > > > dedicate
> > > > > > > > > > themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
> > > > > > > > > > society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong
> > > > > > > > > > believers
> > > > > > > > > > in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
> > > > > > > > > > communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
> > > > > > > > > because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
> > > > > > > > > birth,
> > > > > > > > > citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
> > > > > > > > > initial premise, it a waste of time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
> > > > > > > > > stated,
> > > > > > > > > it is entirely worthless trash.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bullshit bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire
> > > > > > > premise
> > > > > > > of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
> > > > > > > It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bullshit bob.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
> > >
> > > Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
> > > else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.
> >
> > Not until you pointed it out but then it is quite normal for her to do that
> > when she is loosing. Usually it is name calling though.
>
> The group usually see the name calling as a form of distract from the shift
> in direction of the thread. It has been abuse so often is seems everyone is
> used to it.

Carole's constant abuse has actually become meaningless in all ways except
what it says about her.

>
> I once thought is was a lack of attention span sort of an form of adult
> attention deficit disorder, but now see it for a means of distraction when
> she would otherwise admit being just plain wrong.

I have always thought that it is an insecure person, a person who does not
have much respect for or confidence in her/himself, who is/was always running
others down and the purpose would be to make him or herself feel superior to
the person he/she is denigrating.

>
>
> > > > > Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
> > > > > misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
> > > > > examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
> > > > > completely ignored.
> > > > > One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is
> > > > > not
> > > >
> > > > > as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
> > > > > noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
> > > > > random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
> > > > > Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
> > > > > effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
> > > > > pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
> > > > > article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just
> > > > > getting
> > > > > well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
> > > > > press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
> > > > > inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
> > > > > data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
> > > > > million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
> > > > > the millions of people available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
> > > > > Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the
> > > > > 1/3
> > > > > claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
> > > > > percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
> > > > > effect in statistical studies.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
> > > > >
> > > > > Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece
> > > > > does
> > > > > it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite
> > > > > In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
> > > > > effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
> > > > > /cite
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite
> > > > > The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials
> > > > > with
> > > > > subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to
> > > > > -0.25)
> > > > > but not for those with objective outcomes.
> > > > > /cite
> > > > > more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite
> > > > > For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
> > > > > (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
> > > > > between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
> > > > > interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
> > > > > /cite
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
> > > > > conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
> > > > > abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
> > > > > exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the
> > > > > initial
> > > > > studies data.
> > > > >
> > > > > To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
> > > > > study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
> > > > > buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
> > > >
> > > > My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
> > > > measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they gave
> > > > me
> > > > will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a
> > > > sugar
> > > > pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day
> > > > every
> > > > day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I am
> > > > wrong on this?????
> > >
> > > And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
> > > the time.
> > >
> > > > > > Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
> > > > > > scientific testing.
> > > > >
> > > > > It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
> > > > > Carole.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effe
> > > > > > ct
> > > > > > -s
> > > > > > aying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
> > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
> > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
> > > > > are.
> > > > >
> > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > applied
> > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
> > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > >
> > > > Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
> > >
> > > I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time. He
> > > was visiting his dad over in NJ.
> >
> > We did get a bit of snow. I was snowed in earlier. I couldn’t open the
> > front or back door. One of my neighbors shoveled the front walk up to the
> > door for me. It is really a weird feeling being trapped in your house. Glad
> > you nephew got out of here in time.
>
> I am too, he has a 10 month old baby with them and wouldn't want to see my
> ggniece snowed in.

For this area that storm was no where near as bad as forecast. It stopped
snowing around noon yesterday but a little while later it started sleeting, a
very fine sleet. Looked like mist. Anyway we got 2 inches of that and of
course the temp was in the 20’s so those top 2 inches froze solid. I could
have walked across the yard without breaking through. No, I didn’t. Too old
for that fun.I am all shoveled out, have plenty of food and heat is running
fine. We did not loose electricity and the roads are all plowed and passable.

This morning I measured the snow on my deck. 14 inches.

>
>
> > > I am listen to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as they
> > > could be.
>
> Looks like being prepared worked. Areas are still digging out there, some
> places got harder than others. Global warming has put lots of water vapor
> into the air that why the snowfall is so heavy. Even here we are having
> rain storms which are carrying 20-30 percent more water than normal. Some
> spots in the mountains have about 250 percent of the normal snow pack and
> the water content seems to be more. We have have several small levee
> breeches already and they were quickly patched. One area had to evacuate
> nearly 750,000 people because of a earth filled dam was questionable
> condition. There was some damage to the normal spillway which was never
> used before and they had an emergency spillway which had a partial failure.
> Touch and go for a while. But all it well now and the normal spillway was
> patched up and ok to use. The condition is being watched, and people were
> back in their homes after a week.

California needed that water but not all at once. The whole country was
watching that dam and praying for the people.
Bob Officer
2017-03-16 12:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 14, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
>>>>>>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running
>>>>>>>>>>>> smoothly
>>>>>>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
>>>>>>>>>>>> roles.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>> held
>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is
>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
>>>>>>>>>>>> interacting
>>>>>>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from
>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these
>>>>>>>>>>>> goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so
>>>>>>>>>>>> misguided]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they
>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their
>>>>>>>>>>>> job,
>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right
>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior
>>>>>>>>>>>> agenda.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who
>>>>>>>>>>> dedicate
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong
>>>>>>>>>>> believers
>>>>>>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>>>>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at
>>>>>>>>>> birth,
>>>>>>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>>>>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>>>>>>>> stated,
>>>>>>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire
>>>>>>>> premise
>>>>>>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>>>>>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>>>>
>>>> Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
>>>> else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.
>>>
>>> Not until you pointed it out but then it is quite normal for her to do that
>>> when she is loosing. Usually it is name calling though.
>>
>> The group usually see the name calling as a form of distract from the shift
>> in direction of the thread. It has been abuse so often is seems everyone is
>> used to it.
>
> Carole's constant abuse has actually become meaningless in all ways except
> what it says about her.
>
>>
>> I once thought is was a lack of attention span sort of an form of adult
>> attention deficit disorder, but now see it for a means of distraction when
>> she would otherwise admit being just plain wrong.
>
> I have always thought that it is an insecure person, a person who does not
> have much respect for or confidence in her/himself, who is/was always running
> others down and the purpose would be to make him or herself feel superior to
> the person he/she is denigrating.

She just did it,again by trying to bring up politics and George Saros as a
diversion.

I see Kaye caught her again relaying on bad news sites for information. She
cited the liar Bolen's web site where he claims that AARP supports Trump
Ryan medical bill. Well they do not support either Trump nor Ryan, whose
raid on the billion dollar Medicare trust fund would return pennies on the
dollar of senior citizen money, in exchange for a small voucher to buy
insurance if you can find it.

For most seniors, insurance without Medicare is an impossibility.

Why Ryan who admits he doesn't understand the insurance business can write
a bill about insurance is beyond me. It would be like Carole explaining
about stroke damage.


>>>>>> Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
>>>>>> misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
>>>>>> examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
>>>>>> completely ignored.
>>>>>> One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>
>>>>>> as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
>>>>>> noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
>>>>>> random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
>>>>>> Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
>>>>>> effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
>>>>>> pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
>>>>>> article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just
>>>>>> getting
>>>>>> well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
>>>>>> press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
>>>>>> inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
>>>>>> data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
>>>>>> million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
>>>>>> the millions of people available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
>>>>>> Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the
>>>>>> 1/3
>>>>>> claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
>>>>>> percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
>>>>>> effect in statistical studies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>> In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
>>>>>> effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
>>>>>> /cite
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>> The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to
>>>>>> -0.25)
>>>>>> but not for those with objective outcomes.
>>>>>> /cite
>>>>>> more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>> For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
>>>>>> (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
>>>>>> between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
>>>>>> interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
>>>>>> /cite
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
>>>>>> conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
>>>>>> abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
>>>>>> exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the
>>>>>> initial
>>>>>> studies data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
>>>>>> study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
>>>>>> buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
>>>>> measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they gave
>>>>> me
>>>>> will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a
>>>>> sugar
>>>>> pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day
>>>>> every
>>>>> day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I am
>>>>> wrong on this?????
>>>>
>>>> And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
>>>> the time.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
>>>>>>> scientific testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
>>>>>> Carole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effe
>>>>>>> ct
>>>>>>> -s
>>>>>>> aying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>> applied
>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
>>>>
>>>> I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time. He
>>>> was visiting his dad over in NJ.
>>>
>>> We did get a bit of snow. I was snowed in earlier. I couldn’t open the
>>> front or back door. One of my neighbors shoveled the front walk up to the
>>> door for me. It is really a weird feeling being trapped in your house. Glad
>>> you nephew got out of here in time.
>>
>> I am too, he has a 10 month old baby with them and wouldn't want to see my
>> ggniece snowed in.
>
> For this area that storm was no where near as bad as forecast. It stopped
> snowing around noon yesterday but a little while later it started sleeting, a
> very fine sleet. Looked like mist. Anyway we got 2 inches of that and of
> course the temp was in the 20’s so those top 2 inches froze solid. I could
> have walked across the yard without breaking through. No, I didn’t. Too old
> for that fun.I am all shoveled out, have plenty of food and heat is running
> fine. We did not loose electricity and the roads are all plowed and passable.
>
> This morning I measured the snow on my deck. 14 inches.

Some places it was more, much more.


>>>> I am listening to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as they
>>>> could be.
>>
>> Looks like being prepared worked. Areas are still digging out there, some
>> places got harder than others. Global warming has put lots of water vapor
>> into the air that why the snowfall is so heavy. Even here we are having
>> rain storms which are carrying 20-30 percent more water than normal. Some
>> spots in the mountains have about 250 percent of the normal snow pack and
>> the water content seems to be more. We have have several small levee
>> breeches already and they were quickly patched. One area had to evacuate
>> nearly 750,000 people because of a earth filled dam was questionable
>> condition. There was some damage to the normal spillway which was never
>> used before and they had an emergency spillway which had a partial failure.
>> Touch and go for a while. But all it well now and the normal spillway was
>> patched up and ok to use. The condition is being watched, and people were
>> back in their homes after a week.
>
> California needed that water but not all at once. The whole country was
> watching that dam and praying for the people.

The Sutter County Sheriff ordered the evacuation early. He didn't want to
see a wall of water sweeping down on unprepared people. I still have some
of the maps and flood timing which were given to DSW workers in case the
dam did fail.

We had stuff fully planned for the worst case scenario. We even had
assignments given out so we each had our initial placements when and if we
were activated.




--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-03-18 20:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 16, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 14, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > effect,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or wants to know the reason "why".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > he thinks is creating order.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The Guardian
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > personal environment to make sure that everything is running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > smoothly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because they don't question the system. They believe the system
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
> > > > > > > > > > > > > roles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > talented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > held
> > > > > > > > > > > > > beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > extremely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interacting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > family, community, or work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > goals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
> > > > > > > > > > > > > association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > misguided]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > do.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They will do everything that they think should be done in their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > job,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort
> > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and security. "
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they don't always see that they have in fact had their views
> > > > > > > > > > > > > shaped
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > agenda.]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't deny it bob.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're the perfect establishment pawn.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
> > > > > > > > > > > > "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who
> > > > > > > > > > > > dedicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
> > > > > > > > > > > > society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong
> > > > > > > > > > > > believers
> > > > > > > > > > > > in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
> > > > > > > > > > > > communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely
> > > > > > > > > > > falsified
> > > > > > > > > > > because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > birth,
> > > > > > > > > > > citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > initial premise, it a waste of time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
> > > > > > > > > > > stated,
> > > > > > > > > > > it is entirely worthless trash.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bullshit bob.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire
> > > > > > > > > premise
> > > > > > > > > of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
> > > > > > > > > It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bullshit bob.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
> > > > > else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.
> > > >
> > > > Not until you pointed it out but then it is quite normal for her to do
> > > > that
> > > > when she is loosing. Usually it is name calling though.
> > >
> > > The group usually see the name calling as a form of distract from the shift
> > > in direction of the thread. It has been abuse so often is seems everyone is
> > > used to it.
> >
> > Carole's constant abuse has actually become meaningless in all ways except
> > what it says about her.
> >
> > >
> > > I once thought is was a lack of attention span sort of an form of adult
> > > attention deficit disorder, but now see it for a means of distraction when
> > > she would otherwise admit being just plain wrong.
> >
> > I have always thought that it is an insecure person, a person who does not
> > have much respect for or confidence in her/himself, who is/was always
> > running
> > others down and the purpose would be to make him or herself feel superior to
> > the person he/she is denigrating.
>
> She just did it,again by trying to bring up politics and George Saros as a
> diversion.
>
> I see Kaye caught her again relaying on bad news sites for information. She
> cited the liar Bolen's web site where he claims that AARP supports Trump
> Ryan medical bill. Well they do not support either Trump nor Ryan, whose
> raid on the billion dollar Medicare trust fund would return pennies on the
> dollar of senior citizen money, in exchange for a small voucher to buy
> insurance if you can find it.
>
> For most seniors, insurance without Medicare is an impossibility.

There are medigap policies but the premiums are going out of sight.
>
>
> Why Ryan who admits he doesn't understand the insurance business can write
> a bill about insurance is beyond me. It would be like Carole explaining
> about stroke damage.

I just wish they would all work together and create a plan that actually
worked without breaking anybodies bank.

>
>
> > > > > > > Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
> > > > > > > misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
> > > > > > > examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
> > > > > > > completely ignored.
> > > > > > > One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background
> > > > > > > random
> > > > > > > noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo
> > > > > > > effect.
> > > > > > > Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
> > > > > > > effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular
> > > > > > > press
> > > > > > > pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just
> > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
> > > > > > > press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
> > > > > > > inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of
> > > > > > > pooling
> > > > > > > data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
> > > > > > > million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the millions of people available.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant"
> > > > > > > means?
> > > > > > > Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the
> > > > > > > 1/3
> > > > > > > claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
> > > > > > > percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
> > > > > > > effect in statistical studies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cite
> > > > > > > In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
> > > > > > > effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
> > > > > > > /cite
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cite
> > > > > > > The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to
> > > > > > > -0.25)
> > > > > > > but not for those with objective outcomes.
> > > > > > > /cite
> > > > > > > more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cite
> > > > > > > For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial
> > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted
> > > > > > > outcome
> > > > > > > between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
> > > > > > > interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
> > > > > > > /cite
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
> > > > > > > conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
> > > > > > > exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the
> > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > studies data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were
> > > > > > > wearing
> > > > > > > buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
> > > > > > measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they
> > > > > > gave
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a
> > > > > > sugar
> > > > > > pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > wrong on this?????
> > > > >
> > > > > And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
> > > > > the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
> > > > > > > > scientific testing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
> > > > > > > Carole.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-ef
> > > > > > > > fe
> > > > > > > > ct
> > > > > > > > -s
> > > > > > > > aying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
> > > > >
> > > > > I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time.
> > > > > He
> > > > > was visiting his dad over in NJ.
> > > >
> > > > We did get a bit of snow. I was snowed in earlier. I couldn’t open the
> > > > front or back door. One of my neighbors shoveled the front walk up to the
> > > > door for me. It is really a weird feeling being trapped in your house.
> > > > Glad
> > > > you nephew got out of here in time.
> > >
> > > I am too, he has a 10 month old baby with them and wouldn't want to see my
> > > ggniece snowed in.
> >
> > For this area that storm was no where near as bad as forecast. It stopped
> > snowing around noon yesterday but a little while later it started sleeting,
> > a
> > very fine sleet. Looked like mist. Anyway we got 2 inches of that and of
> > course the temp was in the 20’s so those top 2 inches froze solid. I could
> > have walked across the yard without breaking through. No, I didn’t. Too
> > old
> > for that fun.I am all shoveled out, have plenty of food and heat is running
> > fine. We did not loose electricity and the roads are all plowed and
> > passable.
> >
> > This morning I measured the snow on my deck. 14 inches.
>
> Some places it was more, much more.

Yes, I know. FB is a good place sometimes, if you have friended people all
over the country.

More than half of that snow we received the other day has melted. It is
snowing here right now but so far melting or turning to slush becausethe
temperature is a bit above freezing out there. (water in fountain not frozen)

>
>
> > > > > I am listening to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as
> > > > > they
> > > > > could be.
> > >
> > > Looks like being prepared worked. Areas are still digging out there, some
> > > places got harder than others. Global warming has put lots of water vapor
> > > into the air that why the snowfall is so heavy. Even here we are having
> > > rain storms which are carrying 20-30 percent more water than normal. Some
> > > spots in the mountains have about 250 percent of the normal snow pack and
> > > the water content seems to be more. We have have several small levee
> > > breeches already and they were quickly patched. One area had to evacuate
> > > nearly 750,000 people because of a earth filled dam was questionable
> > > condition. There was some damage to the normal spillway which was never
> > > used before and they had an emergency spillway which had a partial failure.
> > > Touch and go for a while. But all it well now and the normal spillway was
> > > patched up and ok to use. The condition is being watched, and people were
> > > back in their homes after a week.
> >
> > California needed that water but not all at once. The whole country was
> > watching that dam and praying for the people.
>
> The Sutter County Sheriff ordered the evacuation early. He didn't want to
> see a wall of water sweeping down on unprepared people. I still have some
> of the maps and flood timing which were given to DSW workers in case the
> dam did fail.
>
> We had stuff fully planned for the worst case scenario. We even had
> assignments given out so we each had our initial placements when and if we
> were activated.

Did you see that short video they were showing yesterday on FB. The one where
the woman was caught in a flood of mud that also contained all kinds of
debries from destroyed buildings. A miracle she made it out alive.
Bob Officer
2017-03-19 01:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 15, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 14, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enquiring minds want to know<***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan<***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoothly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> held
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misguided]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shaped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agenda.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dedicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> falsified
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> birth,
>>>>>>>>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has
>>>>>>>>>>>> stated,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire
>>>>>>>>>> premise
>>>>>>>>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>>>>>>>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you notice how she switched from defending Myers Briggs to something
>>>>>> else when she was reminded of Myers- Briggs being debunked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not until you pointed it out but then it is quite normal for her to do
>>>>> that
>>>>> when she is loosing. Usually it is name calling though.
>>>>
>>>> The group usually see the name calling as a form of distract from the shift
>>>> in direction of the thread. It has been abuse so often is seems everyone is
>>>> used to it.
>>>
>>> Carole's constant abuse has actually become meaningless in all ways except
>>> what it says about her.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I once thought is was a lack of attention span sort of an form of adult
>>>> attention deficit disorder, but now see it for a means of distraction when
>>>> she would otherwise admit being just plain wrong.
>>>
>>> I have always thought that it is an insecure person, a person who does not
>>> have much respect for or confidence in her/himself, who is/was always
>>> running
>>> others down and the purpose would be to make him or herself feel superior to
>>> the person he/she is denigrating.
>>
>> She just did it,again by trying to bring up politics and George Saros as a
>> diversion.
>>
>> I see Kaye caught her again relaying on bad news sites for information. She
>> cited the liar Bolen's web site where he claims that AARP supports Trump
>> Ryan medical bill. Well they do not support either Trump nor Ryan, whose
>> raid on the billion dollar Medicare trust fund would return pennies on the
>> dollar of senior citizen money, in exchange for a small voucher to buy
>> insurance if you can find it.
>>
>> For most seniors, insurance without Medicare is an impossibility.
>
> There are medigap policies but the premiums are going out of sight.
>>
>>
>> Why Ryan who admits he doesn't understand the insurance business can write
>> a bill about insurance is beyond me. It would be like Carole explaining
>> about stroke damage.
>
> I just wish they would all work together and create a plan that actually
> worked without breaking anybodies bank.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
>>>>>>>> misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
>>>>>>>> examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
>>>>>>>> completely ignored.
>>>>>>>> One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background
>>>>>>>> random
>>>>>>>> noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo
>>>>>>>> effect.
>>>>>>>> Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
>>>>>>>> effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular
>>>>>>>> press
>>>>>>>> pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just
>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
>>>>>>>> press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
>>>>>>>> inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of
>>>>>>>> pooling
>>>>>>>> data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
>>>>>>>> million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the millions of people available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant"
>>>>>>>> means?
>>>>>>>> Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the
>>>>>>>> 1/3
>>>>>>>> claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
>>>>>>>> percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
>>>>>>>> effect in statistical studies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>> In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
>>>>>>>> effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
>>>>>>>> /cite
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>> The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to
>>>>>>>> -0.25)
>>>>>>>> but not for those with objective outcomes.
>>>>>>>> /cite
>>>>>>>> more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite
>>>>>>>> For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial
>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>> (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted
>>>>>>>> outcome
>>>>>>>> between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
>>>>>>>> interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
>>>>>>>> /cite
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
>>>>>>>> conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
>>>>>>>> exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the
>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>> studies data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were
>>>>>>>> wearing
>>>>>>>> buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My opinion is that the placebo effect is a play on mind over matter, a
>>>>>>> measure of what we believe vs reality. If I think that the pill they
>>>>>>> gave
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>> will work, more than likely it will whether it is the real thing or a
>>>>>>> sugar
>>>>>>> pill. This alleged debunked placebo effect is at work with us all day
>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>> day and does not just pertain to medicine. I would like to know where I
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>> wrong on this?????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that effect shows up by use of statistics. It works about 20-30% of
>>>>>> the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
>>>>>>>>> scientific testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
>>>>>>>> Carole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-ef
>>>>>>>>> fe
>>>>>>>>> ct
>>>>>>>>> -s
>>>>>>>>> aying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I have to go prepare for a snow storm. (G)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read about that. My great nephew just flew out of there just in time.
>>>>>> He
>>>>>> was visiting his dad over in NJ.
>>>>>
>>>>> We did get a bit of snow. I was snowed in earlier. I couldn’t open the
>>>>> front or back door. One of my neighbors shoveled the front walk up to the
>>>>> door for me. It is really a weird feeling being trapped in your house.
>>>>> Glad
>>>>> you nephew got out of here in time.
>>>>
>>>> I am too, he has a 10 month old baby with them and wouldn't want to see my
>>>> ggniece snowed in.
>>>
>>> For this area that storm was no where near as bad as forecast. It stopped
>>> snowing around noon yesterday but a little while later it started sleeting,
>>> a
>>> very fine sleet. Looked like mist. Anyway we got 2 inches of that and of
>>> course the temp was in the 20’s so those top 2 inches froze solid. I could
>>> have walked across the yard without breaking through. No, I didn’t. Too
>>> old
>>> for that fun.I am all shoveled out, have plenty of food and heat is running
>>> fine. We did not loose electricity and the roads are all plowed and
>>> passable.
>>>
>>> This morning I measured the snow on my deck. 14 inches.
>>
>> Some places it was more, much more.
>
> Yes, I know. FB is a good place sometimes, if you have friended people all
> over the country.
>
> More than half of that snow we received the other day has melted. It is
> snowing here right now but so far melting or turning to slush becausethe
> temperature is a bit above freezing out there. (water in fountain not frozen)
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I am listening to the emergency net right now. Everyone is as ready as
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> could be.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like being prepared worked. Areas are still digging out there, some
>>>> places got harder than others. Global warming has put lots of water vapor
>>>> into the air that why the snowfall is so heavy. Even here we are having
>>>> rain storms which are carrying 20-30 percent more water than normal. Some
>>>> spots in the mountains have about 250 percent of the normal snow pack and
>>>> the water content seems to be more. We have have several small levee
>>>> breeches already and they were quickly patched. One area had to evacuate
>>>> nearly 750,000 people because of a earth filled dam was questionable
>>>> condition. There was some damage to the normal spillway which was never
>>>> used before and they had an emergency spillway which had a partial failure.
>>>> Touch and go for a while. But all it well now and the normal spillway was
>>>> patched up and ok to use. The condition is being watched, and people were
>>>> back in their homes after a week.
>>>
>>> California needed that water but not all at once. The whole country was
>>> watching that dam and praying for the people.
>>
>> The Sutter County Sheriff ordered the evacuation early. He didn't want to
>> see a wall of water sweeping down on unprepared people. I still have some
>> of the maps and flood timing which were given to DSW workers in case the
>> dam did fail.
>>
>> We had stuff fully planned for the worst case scenario. We even had
>> assignments given out so we each had our initial placements when and if we
>> were activated.
>
> Did you see that short video they were showing yesterday on FB. The one where
> the woman was caught in a flood of mud that also contained all kinds of
> debries from destroyed buildings. A miracle she made it out alive.

I didn't see that video but have seen my share of images from floods,
mudslide and other sorts of flood damage. One of the reason I became a
Disaster Service Worker was because of Katrina other natural disasters.
Today was spent like next Saturday teaching other people EmComm procedures
and processes. These will be the people that step up,to help,in those types
of disasters by providing Emergency Communications where the cell phone
coverage doesn't or fails.



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Enquiring minds want to know
2017-03-20 00:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
rOn Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Enquiring minds want to know <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>
>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>
>> Bullshit bob.
>>
>> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>
>Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
>misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
>examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
>completely ignored.
>
>One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not
>as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
>noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
>random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
>Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
>effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
>pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
>article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
>well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
>press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
>inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
>data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
>million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
>the millions of people available.


So what you're saying bob, is that people are easily lead, that if an
authority suggests that something may be helpful then they convince
themselves that it has worked.
And so you have the globalist controlled mass media, and bought and
paid for (by philanthropists, eg Rockefeller) education system telling
those easily lead, that pharmaceutical drugs are wonderful and in fact
they have disastrous side effects that may maim and kill instead of
heal. Yet the FDA and TGA in Australia say they are "safe and
efficacious". This is pure spin and lies. They're neither.

>
>Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
>Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
>claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
>percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
>effect in statistical studies.

No, I don't understand "statistically significant".
I only understand that the system is corrupt and something needs to be
done about it.
Don't hear you ever mention that topic. So, on the basis of "if you're
not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" you're part of
the problem - ie being an ESTJ who supports the system whether good or
bad and rationalises the decision to do that.

>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>
>Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
>it?
>
>Cite
>In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
>effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
>/cite

Sure bob, baffle with bullshit.
What commonsense tells us is that the pharmaceutical cartel will only
support drugs that they can make money from or that make people more
dependent on mainstream medicine. And they deny there is any curative
effect in anything but pharmaceuticals. They send their goons to take
care of anybody who cures outside the regular system.

Regarding the mainstream scientific testing using placebos and double
blind testing, these studies cost millions to undertake which rules
out most dealers of alternative remedies. A nice little scam.

>
>Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?

The placebo effect has been debunked bob.
Get that through your mind controlled brain.

There will always be mainstream studies that support the mainstream
position, because every study produces a different result. They have
difficulty getting studies to repeat results. What they do is just
pick a study that has been engineered to produce the results they want
and go with it.


>
>Cite
>The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
>subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
>but not for those with objective outcomes.
>/cite
>more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>
>Cite
>For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
>(pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
>between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
>interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
>/cite
>
>Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>
>It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
>conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
>abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
>exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
>studies data.
>
>To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
>study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
>buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.

Bob, until I hear you admit the system is corrupt, your views
unfortunately are biased and as an ESTJ aren't entirely rational.

The original study that proved the placebo effect was real was flawed.
And that is what began the use of the placebo effect in science.

Like all mainstream areas of human endeavour, all has been twisted and
manipulated in order to control and engineer a compliant, docile and
subservient population who rely on "experts" and "reliable sources".


>
>
>> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
>> scientific testing.
>
>It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
>Carole.
>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>
>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>
>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>> establishment principle.
>>
>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>> sources doesn't make something true.
>
>Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>are.
>
>It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>
>Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>becomes in parlor games for amusement only

OK bob, then pick a myer briggs type that you think is you.
And you won't do it by denying myer briggs is valid.

Truth hurts, hey bob.
I've seen you on this ng for a long time now, and all you do is stick
up for the current corrupt system and bag any altie that comes along
with an alternative view.

You are an establishment pawn, typical ESTJ quality.

Why do you think there are so few people on newsgroups these days?
It is because the globalists like to control what is said, and so with
facebook and other such forums, they can eliminate and censor posts
that don't fit in with their agenda. They hope to stay in power by
keeping information out of mainstream that challenges it.


--
Enquiring minds want to know

The pharmaceutical industry is based on myths and lies
http://www.pharmamyths.net/

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and
Effective Drugs
http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/JLME_ARTICLE_2013.pdf

Big Pharma Pockets $711 Billion in Profits by Price-Gouging Taxpayers
and Seniors
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/2013/04/08/pharma-711-billion-profits-price-gouging-seniors/

Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than
Basic Research: Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html
Bob Officer
2017-03-21 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Enquiring minds want to know <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
> rOn Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Enquiring minds want to know <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 05:32:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:09:48 +1100, Duncan <***@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Officer is a myer briggs type ESTJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This means his mind style is one that is happiest obeying orders from
>>>>>>>> the system. He's not a thinker, or one who looks for cause and effect,
>>>>>>>> or wants to know the reason "why".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is a person who likes to do the bidding of the establishment, which
>>>>>>>> he thinks is creating order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Guardian
>>>>>>>> Portrait of an ESTJ - Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging
>>>>>>>> (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Sensing)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "They live in the present, with their eye constantly scanning their
>>>>>>>> personal environment to make sure that everything is running smoothly
>>>>>>>> and systematically. **They honor traditions and laws, and have a clear
>>>>>>>> set of standards and beliefs. They expect the same of others, and have
>>>>>>>> no patience or understanding of individuals who do not value these
>>>>>>>> systems. [So if the system if broke, an ESTJ just goes along with it
>>>>>>>> because they don't question the system. They believe the system is
>>>>>>>> correct and anybody who questions it is wrong.]]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ESTJs are take-charge people. They have such a clear vision of the way
>>>>>>>> that things should be, that they naturally step into leadership roles.
>>>>>>>> They are self-confident and aggressive. They are extremely talented at
>>>>>>>> devising systems and plans for action, and at being able to see what
>>>>>>>> steps need to be taken to complete a specific task. They can sometimes
>>>>>>>> be very demanding and critical, because they have such strongly held
>>>>>>>> beliefs, and are likely to express themselves without reserve if they
>>>>>>>> feel someone isn't meeting their standards. But at least their
>>>>>>>> expressions can be taken at face-value, because the ESTJ is extremely
>>>>>>>> straight-forward and honest. [But also can be very stupid]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ESTJ is usually a model citizen, and pillar of the community. He
>>>>>>>> or she takes their commitments seriously, and follows their own
>>>>>>>> standards of "good citizenship" to the letter. ESTJ enjoys interacting
>>>>>>>> with people, and likes to have fun. ESTJs can be very boisterous and
>>>>>>>> fun at social events, especially activities which are focused on the
>>>>>>>> family, community, or work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When bogged down by stress, an ESTJ often feels isolated from others.
>>>>>>>> They feel as if they are misunderstood and undervalued, and that their
>>>>>>>> efforts are taken for granted. Although normally the ESTJ is very
>>>>>>>> verbal and doesn't have any problem expressing themself, when under
>>>>>>>> stress they have a hard time putting their feelings into words and
>>>>>>>> communicating them to others. [Sometimes they get their grammar all
>>>>>>>> wrong and mispell words when under pressure from lying]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ESTJs value security and social order above all else, and feel
>>>>>>>> obligated to do all that they can to enhance and promote these goals.
>>>>>>>> They will mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners
>>>>>>>> association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to
>>>>>>>> promote personal and social security. [So good but yet so misguided]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ESTJ puts forth a lot of effort in almost everything that they do.
>>>>>>>> They will do everything that they think should be done in their job,
>>>>>>>> marriage, and community with a good amount of energy. He or she is
>>>>>>>> conscientious, practical, realistic, and dependable. While the ESTJ
>>>>>>>> will dutifully do everything that is important to work towards a
>>>>>>>> particular cause or goal, they might not naturally see or value the
>>>>>>>> importance of goals which are outside of their practical scope.
>>>>>>>> However, if the ESTJ is able to see the relevance of such goals to
>>>>>>>> practical concerns, you can bet that they'll put every effort into
>>>>>>>> understanding them and incorporating them into their quest for clarity
>>>>>>>> and security. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ESTJs are wonderful people, except when they're leading others
>>>>>>>> astray. In their zeal to get everybody on board to do the right thing
>>>>>>>> they don't always see that they have in fact had their views shaped by
>>>>>>>> unscrupulous sources who are using them to push an ulterior agenda.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every myer briggs type has its weakness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as a Myers Briggs type, Carole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob's is being an establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Bob Officer is an ESTJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't deny it bob.
>>>>>>> You're the perfect establishment pawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ
>>>>>>> "According to Keirsey, ESTJs are civic-minded individuals who dedicate
>>>>>>> themselves to maintaining the institutions behind a smooth-running
>>>>>>> society. ***They are defenders of the status quo and strong believers
>>>>>>> in rules and procedures. ESTJs are outgoing and do not hesitate to
>>>>>>> communicate their opinions and expectations to others."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the entire Myers Briggs personify test is completely falsified
>>>>>> because it is entered based on the concept of a fixed personality at birth,
>>>>>> citing any thing other than someone with new evidence to support the
>>>>>> initial premise, it a waste of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words it doesn't matter what sort of nattering Keirsey has stated,
>>>>>> it is entirely worthless trash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>>
>>>> No, Carole it isn't bullshit. It is the the real deal. The entire premise
>>>> of the Myers-Briggs personality typing has been completely falsified.
>>>> It,was posted here and you took part in the discussion.
>>>
>>> Bullshit bob.
>>>
>>> Did you know that the placebo effect has been debunked?
>>
>> Actually, no it has not. The error filled article you cite is shoddy,
>> misleading and in so many places just absolutely wrong. One needs to
>> examine why the article never passed any peer review process and it is
>> completely ignored.
>>
>> One thing about the article doesn't touch upon is the placebo effect is not
>> as stated, but an observed statistic value. There is a background random
>> noise level which runs between 12-18%. The level of outcomes between the
>> random noise level and about 25 percent is considered the placebo effect.
>> Not 33-39 percent as stated by the newspaper article as stated and the
>> effect is always stated as with in the standard deviation. Popular press
>> pieces are known as not great sources of information. One could read that
>> article and get a take away that there is no effect of people just getting
>> well without treatment and that is not what the study says. The popular
>> press piece also doesn't address the issue of how articles selected for
>> inclusion were made. The study under question used a technique of pooling
>> data. They ( the researcher) used only 117 studies out of the nearly
>> million study's available and those studies only used 45,000 cases out of
>> the millions of people available.
>
>
> So what you're saying bob, is that people are easily lead, that if an
> authority suggests that something may be helpful then they convince
> themselves that it has worked.
> And so you have the globalist controlled mass media, and bought and
> paid for (by philanthropists, eg Rockefeller) education system telling
> those easily lead, that pharmaceutical drugs are wonderful and in fact
> they have disastrous side effects that may maim and kill instead of
> heal. Yet the FDA and TGA in Australia say they are "safe and
> efficacious". This is pure spin and lies. They're neither.
>
>>
>> Do you fully understand what the term "statistically significant" means?
>> Just because Hrobjartsson And Gotzsche didn't find data to support the 1/3
>> claim, it seems they did find the rate was inside the predictable 12-18
>> percent with in the rate of standard deviation for the observed placebo
>> effect in statistical studies.
>
> No, I don't understand "statistically significant".

Then why are you even commenting past this point?


> I only understand that the system is corrupt and something needs to be
> done about it.
> Don't hear you ever mention that topic. So, on the basis of "if you're
> not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" you're part of
> the problem - ie being an ESTJ who supports the system whether good or
> bad and rationalises the decision to do that.
>
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11372012
>>
>> Read the abstract and it doesn't match up,exactly with the press piece does
>> it?
>>
>> Cite
>> In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial
>> effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15).
>> /cite
>
> Sure bob, baffle with bullshit.

Data, Carole, is not bullshit, data from the study you referred to can not
be bullshit, unless your references are bullshit.

> What commonsense


You don't have common sense Carole,

> tells us is that the pharmaceutical cartel will only
> support drugs that they can make money from or that make people more
> dependent on mainstream medicine. And they deny there is any curative
> effect in anything but pharmaceuticals. They send their goons to take
> care of anybody who cures outside the regular system.
>
> Regarding the mainstream scientific testing using placebos and double
> blind testing, these studies cost millions to undertake which rules
> out most dealers of alternative remedies. A nice little scam.


That excuse is lame, Carole. Alternative medicines bring in billions of
dollars for pennies of investments. It is nearly unregulated, and deemed
safe because it does nothing.

>>
>> Oh lol that shows placebo is an observable effect, doesn't it?
>
> The placebo effect has been debunked bob.
> Get that through your mind controlled brain.

This study, the one you sited, shows it is real.

> There will always be mainstream studies that support the mainstream
> position, because every study produces a different result. They have
> difficulty getting studies to repeat results. What they do is just
> pick a study that has been engineered to produce the results they want
> and go with it.
>
>
>>
>> Cite
>> The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with
>> subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25)
>> but not for those with objective outcomes.
>> /cite
>> more evidence that the placebo effect is real.
>>
>> Cite
>> For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect
>> (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome
>> between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence
>> interval, -0.38 to -0.19),
>> /cite
>>
>> Oh look more evidence which supports the placebo effect.
>>
>> It was only one specific narrow range of cases which support their
>> conclusion, one has to question the inclusion criteria for the study. The
>> abstract does state the researchers started with 130 studies and did
>> exclude 16 studies because of outcomes. That's excluding 1/6 of the initial
>> studies data.
>>
>> To put it in real life terms, that would be like polling 100 people in a
>> study about shirts and ignoring 16 people just because they were wearing
>> buttoned shirts rather than pull overs.
>
> Bob, until I hear you admit the system is corrupt, your views
> unfortunately are biased and as an ESTJ aren't entirely rational.
>
> The original study that proved the placebo effect was real was flawed.
> And that is what began the use of the placebo effect in science.
>
> Like all mainstream areas of human endeavour, all has been twisted and
> manipulated in order to control and engineer a compliant, docile and
> subservient population who rely on "experts" and "reliable sources".

The study you referred to shows the placebo effect was real.

>>
>>
>>> Doesn't stop big pharma from relying on it with all their dodgy
>>> scientific testing.
>>
>> It isn't the only tool used, it is just part of any significant study,
>> Carole.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>
>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>
>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>> establishment principle.
>>>
>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>
>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>> are.
>>
>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>
>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>
> OK bob, then pick a myer briggs type that you think is you.
> And you won't do it by denying myer briggs is valid.
>
> Truth hurts, hey bob.
> I've seen you on this ng for a long time now, and all you do is stick
> up for the current corrupt system and bag any altie that comes along
> with an alternative view.
>
> You are an establishment pawn, typical ESTJ quality.
>
> Why do you think there are so few people on newsgroups these days?

There are 1000s of different on- line groups. Podcasts, and Facebook,
twitter, and many 1000s of private email group lists.

I know of over sixty international forums for amateur radio today, there
are 1000s of blog just about ham radio.30 years ago there was three US, one
British, and one Canadian, one Japanese, one German (quarterly) and a
handful of others

When Usenet was founded there were two way of having a public forum. Usenet
or BBS and mail lists.

> It is because the globalists like to control what is said, and so with
> facebook and other such forums, they can eliminate and censor posts
> that don't fit in with their agenda. They hope to stay in power by
> keeping information out of mainstream that challenges it.

No, Carole today there is such a diversity of forums it nearly
uncontrollable.
But then Kruger Dunning effect applies here.



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Duncan
2017-03-20 01:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:


Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.

>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>
>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>
>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>> establishment principle.
>>
>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>> sources doesn't make something true.
>
>Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>are.

This holds true most of the time bob.
But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
people should believe.

>
>It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.

Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
myer briggs type testing system is worthless?

>
>Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>becomes in parlor games for amusement only

You are a pawn bob, admit it.



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Mo Onions
2017-03-20 08:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/19/2017 9:07 PM, Duncan aka sock of Carole wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.

<snip the usual nonsense>

Hey Carole, did you finish your homework on strokes yet?

Where's the summary of what you learned?
Mo Onions
2017-03-22 12:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/19/2017 9:07 PM, Duncan wrote:

<snip>

Carole is an idiot.
Bob Officer
2017-03-28 00:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>
>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>
>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>> establishment principle.
>>>
>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>
>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>> are.
>
> This holds true most of the time bob.

Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
or policies, states that?

> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> people should believe.

Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.

I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.

Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
are outright lies, or scam to harm people.

>>
>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>
> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?

No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
real future except as entertainment for people.

>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>
> You are a pawn bob, admit it.

No Carole, the pawn is you.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Duncan
2017-03-29 02:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>
>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>
>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>
>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>> are.
>>
>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>
>Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>or policies, states that?


You have no comprehension skills bob.
I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
treat others.

>
>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>> people should believe.
>
>Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.

You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.

>
>I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.

You push your opinions onto others.
Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
masses.

>
>Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>are outright lies, or scam to harm people.

Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
game in town. This just isn't true.

Thanks heavens for Trump.
I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.

>
>>>
>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>
>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>
>No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>real future except as entertainment for people.

I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.

>
>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>
>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>
>No Carole, the pawn is you.

Not me bob.
I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
sources".

The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
nutrient for any condition?



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)


> [BOB] "Beliefs are not opinions."
>
> I think you will find that "belief" is a synonym for "opinion".
> So WTF are you trying to say idiot?

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
Mo Onions
2017-03-29 04:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/28/2017 10:50 PM, Duncan aka sock of Carole wrote:

> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> game in town. This just isn't true.

So what are the alt med remedies for stroke?
Lu
2017-03-30 02:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 29, 2017, Mo Onions wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> On 3/28/2017 10:50 PM, Duncan aka sock of Carole wrote:
>
> > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > game in town. This just isn't true.
>
> So what are the alt med remedies for stroke?

She has never answered any challenges to her claims.
Bob Officer
2017-03-30 17:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2017, Mo Onions wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> On 3/28/2017 10:50 PM, Duncan aka sock of Carole wrote:
>>
>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>
>> So what are the alt med remedies for stroke?
>
> She has never answered any challenges to her claims.
>
>
>

She can't because there is alt remedies for a stoke.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-03-30 02:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mar 28, 2017, Duncan wrote
(in article<***@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effec
> > > > > t-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > >
> > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
> > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
> > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
> > > > are.
> > >
> > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> >
> > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
> > or policies, states that?
>
> You have no comprehension skills bob.
> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> treat others.
>
> >
> > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > people should believe.
> >
> > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>
> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>
> >
> > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
> > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
> > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>
> You push your opinions onto others.
> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> masses.
> >
> > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
> > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>
> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> game in town. This just isn't true.
>
> Thanks heavens for Trump.
> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
> > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > >
> > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> >
> > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
> > real future except as entertainment for people.
>
> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>
> >
> > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
> > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > >
> > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> >
> > No Carole, the pawn is you.
>
> Not me bob.
> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> sources".
>
> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> nutrient for any condition?

Too bad you don’t know what goes on in a doctors office.
Bob Officer
2017-03-30 17:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2017, Duncan wrote
> (in article<***@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effec
>>>>>> t-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>
>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>> or policies, states that?
>>
>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>> treat others.
>>
>>>
>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>> people should believe.
>>>
>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>
>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>
>>>
>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>
>> You push your opinions onto others.
>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>> masses.
>>>
>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>
>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>
>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>
>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>
>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>
>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>
>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>
>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>
>> Not me bob.
>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>> sources".
>>
>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>> nutrient for any condition?
>
> Too bad you don’t know what goes on in a doctors office.

Nor is she aware of how governments actual work or what they do. All she
cares about is her monthly check.

--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Bob Officer
2017-04-16 20:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>
>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>
>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>> or policies, states that?
>
>
> You have no comprehension skills bob.

I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.

> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> treat others.

I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
ignorant to the point you are STUPID.

>>
>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>> people should believe.
>>
>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>
> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.

Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?

>>
>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>
> You push your opinions onto others.

I state facts. Not opinions.

> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> masses.

And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.

>>
>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>
> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> game in town. This just isn't true.

You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
turmeric IV drip?

Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.


> Thanks heavens for Trump.
> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.

You must not be 💰 my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
and big industry and big pharma left and right.

>>
>>>>
>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>
>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>
>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>
> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.

Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.

>>
>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>
>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>
>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>
> Not me bob.
> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> sources".

You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. You expert were questioned,
not mine.

> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> nutrient for any condition?

Every day.


--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
kaye
2017-04-17 06:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Officer <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>
>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>> or policies, states that?
>>
>>
>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>
> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>
>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>> treat others.
>
> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>
>>>
>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>> people should believe.
>>>
>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>
>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>
> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>
>>>
>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>
>> You push your opinions onto others.
>
> I state facts. Not opinions.
>
>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>> masses.
>
> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>
>>>
>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>
>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>
> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> turmeric IV drip?
>
> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>
>
>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>
> You must not be 💰 my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
> and big industry and big pharma left and right.

Actually he has put a ladder into the swamp that leads the swamp monsters
into cabinet seats of the Whitehouse. Every single one of them have zero
knowledge or understanding of the department they are "running" and huge
conflicts of interest.


>>>>>
>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>
>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>
>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>
>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>
> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>
>>>
>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>
>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>
>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>
>> Not me bob.
>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>> sources".
>
> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. You expert were questioned,
> not mine.
>
>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>> nutrient for any condition?
>
> Every day.
>
>

U
Duncan
2017-04-21 01:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>
>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>> or policies, states that?
>>
>>
>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>
>I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.

Rubbish.

>
>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>> treat others.
>
>I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>ignorant to the point you are STUPID.

Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
matter within mha.

>
>>>
>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>> people should believe.
>>>
>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>
>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>
>Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?

You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.

>
>>>
>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>
>> You push your opinions onto others.
>
>I state facts. Not opinions.

Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
"opinion".


>
>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>> masses.
>
>And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
>lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
>repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.

As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
"fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.

>
>>>
>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>
>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>
>You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>turmeric IV drip?
>
>Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.

Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.

>
>
>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>
>You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>and big industry and big pharma left and right.

Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
That's one point.
I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
influenced by warmongers.


>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>
>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>
>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>
>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>
>Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.

Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
"expert" doctrine.

>
>>>
>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>
>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>
>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>
>> Not me bob.
>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>> sources".
>
>You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. You expert were questioned,
>not mine.

Whatever bob.
The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.

>
>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>> nutrient for any condition?
>
>Every day.

I don't think so bob.
If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
would be de-registered.



--
Duncan

"Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a political term." (Ed. The
Climate Skeptics (TCS) Blog)

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There
are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we
don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we
don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld

> [BOB] "Beliefs are not opinions."
>
> I think you will find that "belief" is a synonym for "opinion".
> So WTF are you trying to say idiot?

[BOB] "I stand by what I said in context. A belief is
something held true with or without supporting
evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

An opinion is based on what one thinks and not what
one believes. Ones religion is what one believes.
Religion requires no thinking and in many cases
Religion forbids thinking.

While you might believe their are interchangeable
synonyms, I think if you asked an expert in the
English Language they might agree with me. The
words have different meanings and uses."
--------

">I didn't know there was a requirement to generate topics. Where did
>you get that idiotic idea from. " -- Bob Officer

DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Bob Officer
2017-04-21 17:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>>> are.
>>>>>
>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>
>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>
> Rubbish.

No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.

. Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
want.

That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
bullshit.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/

"When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
than your MBTI results. "

Here is a real experts opinion

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die

<Cite>
"Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to turn
to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
really."

"A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as
many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
category.”"

"A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on
the four domains it does sample.”"

</cite>

Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality

More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
personality.

What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
PROJECTION.


>>
>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>> treat others.
>>
>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>
> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> matter within mha.

The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.

>>>>
>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>
>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>
>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>
>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>
> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.

You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
when you suck up to him?
The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
him and he still ignored you.


>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>
>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>
>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>
> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> "opinion".

I do and it is you that do not.

Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
different results.

The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.





>
>>
>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>> masses.
>>
>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>
> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.

Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
MBTI isn't valid at all.

>>>>
>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>
>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>
>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>> turmeric IV drip?
>>
>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>
> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.

Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.

If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.

Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.

>>
>>
>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>
>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>
> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> That's one point.
> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> influenced by warmongers.

Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-fake-court/

"Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.

But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:

The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
joint is really "a performance artist."

That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."

"He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
Kelly Jones."

So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.

And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?

Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>
>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>
>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>
>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>
> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> "expert" doctrine.

So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
interesting, they lacked any sort validity.

>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>
>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>
>>> Not me bob.
>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>> sources".
>>
>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the ones questioned,
>> not mine.
>
> Whatever bob.
> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.

You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.

Your personality type is STUPid.

>>
>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>
>> Every day.
>
> I don't think so bob.
> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> would be de-registered.

No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
level is less than 100.

And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
don't even need to take vitamin D.


--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Mo Onions
2017-04-21 18:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/21/2017 1:06 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>
>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>
> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
> want.
>
> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> bullshit.
>
> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>
> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> than your MBTI results. "
>
> Here is a real experts opinion
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
>
> <Cite>
> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to turn
> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> really."
>
> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as
> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> category.”"
>
> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on
> the four domains it does sample.”"
>
> </cite>
>
> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>
> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> personality.
>
> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> PROJECTION.
>
>
>>>
>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>> treat others.
>>>
>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>
>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>> matter within mha.
>
> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>
>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>
>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>
>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>
> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
> when you suck up to him?
> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
> him and he still ignored you.
>
>
>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when their
>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are inconsistent,
>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>
>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>
>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>
>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>> "opinion".
>
> I do and it is you that do not.
>
> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> different results.
>
> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
>
>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>> masses.
>>>
>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>
>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>
> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>
>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>
>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>
>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>
>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>
>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>
> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>
> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>
> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>
>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>
>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>
>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>> That's one point.
>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>> influenced by warmongers.
>
> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-fake-court/
>
> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>
> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>
> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> joint is really "a performance artist."
>
> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>
> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> Kelly Jones."
>
> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>
> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>
> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>
>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label applied
>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>
>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has no
>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>
>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>
>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>
>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>> "expert" doctrine.
>
> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>
>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless and
>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.

Carole is a dupe.

>>>> Not me bob.
>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>> sources".
>>>
>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the ones questioned,
>>> not mine.
>>
>> Whatever bob.
>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>
> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>
> Your personality type is STUPid.

In the land down under, there is a stupid woman named Carole.
She is an embarrassment to all.

>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>
>>> Every day.
>>
>> I don't think so bob.
>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>> would be de-registered.
>
> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> level is less than 100.
>
> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> don't even need to take vitamin D.

Carole needs to get some sun.
She looks pale and sickly.
Too many baking soda cocktails.
She should audition for a role as Popeye's girlfriend, Olive Oyl.
Maybe she'll get lucky, get a new career, and leave her nonsense behind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Oyl

https://tinyurl.com/ky4g9ve
Lu
2017-04-22 12:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-ef
> > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
> > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
> > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > >
> > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>
> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
> want.
>
> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> bullshit.
>
> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>
> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> than your MBTI results. "
>
> Here is a real experts opinion
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad
> -won-t-die
>
> <Cite>
> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to turn
> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> really."
>
> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as
> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> category.”"
>
> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on
> the four domains it does sample.”"
>
> </cite>
>
> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>
> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> personality.
>
> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> PROJECTION.
>
> > >
> > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> > > > treat others.
> > >
> > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> >
> > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > matter within mha.
>
> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > >
> > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > >
> > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> >
> > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>
> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
> when you suck up to him?
> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
> him and he still ignored you.
>
> > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
> > > > > their
> > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > >
> > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > >
> > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> >
> > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > "opinion".
>
> I do and it is you that do not.
>
> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> different results.
>
> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > masses.
> > >
> > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
> > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
> > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> >
> > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>
> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
> > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > >
> > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > >
> > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > turmeric IV drip?
> > >
> > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> >
> > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>
> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>
> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>
> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > >
> > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
> > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> >
> > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > That's one point.
> > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > influenced by warmongers.
>
> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-fak
> e-court/
>
> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>
> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>
> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> joint is really "a performance artist."
>
> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>
> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> Kelly Jones."
>
> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>
> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>
> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > >
> > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has
> > > > > no
> > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > >
> > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > >
> > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
> > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> >
> > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > "expert" doctrine.
>
> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>
> > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > >
> > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > >
> > > > Not me bob.
> > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > sources".
> > >
> > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the ones
> > > questioned,
> > > not mine.
> >
> > Whatever bob.
> > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>
> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>
> Your personality type is STUPid.
>
> > >
> > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > >
> > > Every day.
> >
> > I don't think so bob.
> > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > would be de-registered.
>
> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> level is less than 100.
>
> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> don't even need to take vitamin D.

Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
the name calling?
Bob Officer
2017-04-23 00:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-ef
>>>>>>>>> fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>>
>>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>
>> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>>
>> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
>> want.
>>
>> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>> bullshit.
>>
>> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>>
>> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
>> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>> than your MBTI results. "
>>
>> Here is a real experts opinion
>>
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad
>> -won-t-die
>>
>> <Cite>
>> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to turn
>> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
>> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>> really."
>>
>> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
>> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as
>> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
>> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
>> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
>> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>> category.”"
>>
>> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
>> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
>> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
>> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
>> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
>> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
>> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
>> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
>> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information on
>> the four domains it does sample.”"
>>
>> </cite>
>>
>> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
>> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>>
>> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
>> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
>> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
>> personality.
>>
>> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
>> PROJECTION.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>>> treat others.
>>>>
>>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>>
>>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>>> matter within mha.
>>
>> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>>
>>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>>
>>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>>
>> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
>> when you suck up to him?
>> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
>> him and he still ignored you.
>>
>>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
>>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>>
>>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>>
>>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>>> "opinion".
>>
>> I do and it is you that do not.
>>
>> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
>> different results.
>>
>> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
>> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
>> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
>> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
>> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
>> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>>> masses.
>>>>
>>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION. You
>>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you constantly
>>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>>
>>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>>
>> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
>> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
>> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
>> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
>> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and often
>>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>>
>>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>>
>>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>>
>>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>>
>> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>>
>> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
>> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>>
>> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>>
>>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>>
>>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>>> That's one point.
>>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>>> influenced by warmongers.
>>
>> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
>> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-fak
>> e-court/
>>
>> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
>> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
>> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
>> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
>> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
>> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
>> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
>> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
>> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
>> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
>> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
>> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>>
>> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
>> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>>
>> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
>> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
>> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
>> joint is really "a performance artist."
>>
>> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
>> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>>
>> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
>> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
>> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
>> Kelly Jones."
>>
>> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
>> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>>
>> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>>
>> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and has
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>>
>>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>>> "expert" doctrine.
>>
>> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
>> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
>> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
>> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not me bob.
>>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>>> sources".
>>>>
>>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the ones
>>>> questioned,
>>>> not mine.
>>>
>>> Whatever bob.
>>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>>
>> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
>> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
>> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
>> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>>
>> Your personality type is STUPid.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>>
>>>> Every day.
>>>
>>> I don't think so bob.
>>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>>> would be de-registered.
>>
>> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
>> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
>> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
>> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
>> level is less than 100.
>>
>> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
>> don't even need to take vitamin D.
>
> Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
> is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
> the name calling?
>
>

I do.

If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.

However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
work upon which the MBTI was based upon.

Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
research or evidence or data.

This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
and never finds anything new.

She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.

So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
where it will be cool.

And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
challenge.

What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?


--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-04-25 03:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-
> > > > > > > > > > ef
> > > > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
> > > > > > > procedures
> > > > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > Rubbish.
> > >
> > > No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
> > >
> > > . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> > > not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
> > > want.
> > >
> > > That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> > > bullshit.
> > >
> > > http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
> > >
> > > "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
> > > can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> > > circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> > > than your MBTI results. "
> > >
> > > Here is a real experts opinion
> > >
> > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-
> > > fad
> > > -won-t-die
> > >
> > > <Cite>
> > > "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
> > > turn
> > > to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
> > > the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> > > categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> > > standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> > > comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> > > really."
> > >
> > > "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
> > > If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> > > different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> > > reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> > > when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> > > foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
> > > as
> > > many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
> > > when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> > > Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
> > > have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
> > > adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> > > around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> > > category.”"
> > >
> > > "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
> > > key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> > > emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> > > collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> > > important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
> > > and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> > > judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
> > > but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> > > accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> > > called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> > > Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
> > > on
> > > the four domains it does sample.”"
> > >
> > > </cite>
> > >
> > > Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
> > > a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
> > >
> > > More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
> > > is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> > > around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> > > personality.
> > >
> > > What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > PROJECTION.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> > > > > > treat others.
> > > > >
> > > > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> > > > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> > > >
> > > > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > > > matter within mha.
> > >
> > > The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> > > >
> > > > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > > > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
> > >
> > > You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
> > > when you suck up to him?
> > > The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
> > > him and he still ignored you.
> > >
> > > > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > > > >
> > > > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > > > "opinion".
> > >
> > > I do and it is you that do not.
> > >
> > > Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> > > different results.
> > >
> > > The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
> > > get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> > > invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> > > field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> > > promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
> > > the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> > > > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > > > masses.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
> > > > > You
> > > > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
> > > > > constantly
> > > > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> > > >
> > > > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > > > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
> > >
> > > Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> > > that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
> > > a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> > > behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
> > > MBTI isn't valid at all.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
> > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > > > turmeric IV drip?
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
> > >
> > > Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
> > >
> > > If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> > > million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
> > >
> > > Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > > > >
> > > > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
> > > > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > > > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > > > That's one point.
> > > > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > > > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > > > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > > > influenced by warmongers.
> > >
> > > Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> > > http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-
> > > fak
> > > e-court/
> > >
> > > "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
> > > never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> > > digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> > > ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> > > Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> > > see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
> > > around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> > > hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> > > essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> > > whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> > > that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> > > sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
> > >
> > > But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> > > admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
> > >
> > > The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> > > stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> > > Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> > > joint is really "a performance artist."
> > >
> > > That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
> > > right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
> > >
> > > "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
> > > Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> > > hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> > > Kelly Jones."
> > >
> > > So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> > > audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
> > >
> > > And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
> > >
> > > Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
> > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
> > > > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > > > "expert" doctrine.
> > >
> > > So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> > > These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
> > > pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> > > interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not me bob.
> > > > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > > > sources".
> > > > >
> > > > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
> > > > > ones
> > > > > questioned,
> > > > > not mine.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever bob.
> > > > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > > > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > > > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
> > >
> > > You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> > > understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> > > really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
> > > correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
> > >
> > > Your personality type is STUPid.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> > > > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > > > >
> > > > > Every day.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so bob.
> > > > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > > > would be de-registered.
> > >
> > > No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
> > > and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
> > > capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
> > > know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> > > level is less than 100.
> > >
> > > And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> > > don't even need to take vitamin D.
> >
> > Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
> > is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> > pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
> > the name calling?
>
> I do.
>
> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>
> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>
> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
> research or evidence or data.

I took that test two times and had a different typing each time, making that
test worthless. I learned to skew the results of that type of test when I was
a kid.
>
>
> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
> and never finds anything new.

Just boring.
>
>
> She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
>
> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
> Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
> where it will be cool.
>
> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
> challenge.

Calligraphy is fun. I gave it up when I developed carpel tunnel in my wrist.
I bought the font and started using my computer for that type of printing.
Now you can get so many fonts free.

>
>
> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?

The only set plans I have between now and June would be doctors appointments
(I’m laughing)and learning to use an Instant Pot. Otherwise, most
everything I and my friends do is spur of the moment and does not involve
travel of more then 20 miles or doing anything heavy. We are just too old.
Might work on a class reunion if we decide to have one?
kaye
2017-04-25 05:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-
>>>>>>>>>>> ef
>>>>>>>>>>> fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
>>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>>>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>>>> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>>>> bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>>>>
>>>> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
>>>> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>>>> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>>>> than your MBTI results. "
>>>>
>>>> Here is a real experts opinion
>>>>
>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-
>>>> fad
>>>> -won-t-die
>>>>
>>>> <Cite>
>>>> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
>>>> turn
>>>> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
>>>> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>>>> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>>>> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>>>> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>>>> really."
>>>>
>>>> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
>>>> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>>>> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>>>> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>>>> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>>>> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
>>>> as
>>>> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
>>>> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>>>> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
>>>> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
>>>> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>>>> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>>>> category.”"
>>>>
>>>> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
>>>> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>>>> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>>>> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
>>>> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
>>>> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
>>>> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
>>>> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
>>>> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
>>>> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
>>>> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
>>>> on
>>>> the four domains it does sample.”"
>>>>
>>>> </cite>
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
>>>> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>>>>
>>>> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
>>>> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
>>>> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
>>>> personality.
>>>>
>>>> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
>>>> PROJECTION.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>>>>> treat others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>>>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>>>>> matter within mha.
>>>>
>>>> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>>>>
>>>>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>>>>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>>>>
>>>> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
>>>> when you suck up to him?
>>>> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
>>>> him and he still ignored you.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
>>>>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>>>>> "opinion".
>>>>
>>>> I do and it is you that do not.
>>>>
>>>> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
>>>> different results.
>>>>
>>>> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
>>>> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
>>>> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
>>>> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
>>>> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
>>>> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>>>>> masses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>>>>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>>>>
>>>> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
>>>> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
>>>> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
>>>> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
>>>> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>>>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>>>>
>>>> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>>>>
>>>> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
>>>> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>>>>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>>>>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>>>>> That's one point.
>>>>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>>>>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>>>>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>>>>> influenced by warmongers.
>>>>
>>>> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
>>>> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-
>>>> fak
>>>> e-court/
>>>>
>>>> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
>>>> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
>>>> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
>>>> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
>>>> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
>>>> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
>>>> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
>>>> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
>>>> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
>>>> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
>>>> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
>>>> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>>>>
>>>> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
>>>> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>>>>
>>>> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
>>>> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
>>>> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
>>>> joint is really "a performance artist."
>>>>
>>>> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
>>>> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>>>>
>>>> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
>>>> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
>>>> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
>>>> Kelly Jones."
>>>>
>>>> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
>>>> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>>>>
>>>> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>>>>
>>>> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>>>>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>>>>> "expert" doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
>>>> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
>>>> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
>>>> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not me bob.
>>>>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>>>>> sources".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
>>>>>> ones
>>>>>> questioned,
>>>>>> not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever bob.
>>>>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>>>>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>>>>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
>>>> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
>>>> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
>>>> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>>>>
>>>> Your personality type is STUPid.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so bob.
>>>>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>>>>> would be de-registered.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
>>>> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
>>>> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
>>>> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
>>>> level is less than 100.
>>>>
>>>> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
>>>> don't even need to take vitamin D.
>>>
>>> Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
>>> is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
>>> pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
>>> the name calling?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
>> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>>
>> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
>> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
>> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>>
>> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
>> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
>> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
>> research or evidence or data.
>
> I took that test two times and had a different typing each time, making that
> test worthless. I learned to skew the results of that type of test when I was
> a kid.
>>
>>
>> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
>> and never finds anything new.
>
> Just boring.
>>
>>
>> She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
>>
>> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
>> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
>> Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
>> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
>> where it will be cool.
>>
>> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
>> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
>> challenge.
>
> Calligraphy is fun. I gave it up when I developed carpel tunnel in my wrist.
> I bought the font and started using my computer for that type of printing.
> Now you can get so many fonts free.
>
>>
>>
>> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
>
> The only set plans I have between now and June would be doctors appointments
> (I’m laughing)and learning to use an Instant Pot. Otherwise, most
> everything I and my friends do is spur of the moment and does not involve
> travel of more then 20 miles or doing anything heavy. We are just too old.
> Might work on a class reunion if we decide to have one?
>

Let us know how you like the Instant Pot. I've heard good things about it.
Kaye
Lu
2017-04-25 13:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 25, 2017, kaye wrote
(in article<1106678466.514788522.485072.k-***@news.altopia.com>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placeb
> > > > > > > > > > > > o-
> > > > > > > > > > > > ef
> > > > > > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike
> > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs
> > > > > > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take
> > > > > > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed
> > > > > > > > > > > > aside
> > > > > > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing
> > > > > > > > > > > > establishment
> > > > > > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other
> > > > > > > > > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
> > > > > > > > > procedures
> > > > > > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > > > > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rubbish.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> > > > > not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every
> > > > > they
> > > > > want.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> > > > > bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
> > > > >
> > > > > "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only
> > > > > you
> > > > > can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> > > > > circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> > > > > than your MBTI results. "
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a real experts opinion
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-th
> > > > > e-
> > > > > fad
> > > > > -won-t-die
> > > > >
> > > > > <Cite>
> > > > > "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
> > > > > turn
> > > > > to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue
> > > > > with
> > > > > the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> > > > > categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> > > > > standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> > > > > comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> > > > > really."
> > > > >
> > > > > "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different
> > > > > sources.
> > > > > If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> > > > > different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> > > > > reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> > > > > when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> > > > > foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
> > > > > as
> > > > > many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality
> > > > > type
> > > > > when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> > > > > Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the
> > > > > Myers-Briggs
> > > > > have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman
> > > > > Krznaric
> > > > > adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> > > > > around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> > > > > category.”"
> > > > >
> > > > > "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of
> > > > > the
> > > > > key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> > > > > emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> > > > > collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> > > > > important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought,
> > > > > feeling,
> > > > > and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> > > > > judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a
> > > > > planner,
> > > > > but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> > > > > accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> > > > > called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> > > > > Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
> > > > > on
> > > > > the four domains it does sample.”"
> > > > >
> > > > > </cite>
> > > > >
> > > > > Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is
> > > > > not
> > > > > a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
> > > > >
> > > > > More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality
> > > > > type
> > > > > is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> > > > > around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> > > > > personality.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > > > PROJECTION.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> > > > > > > > treat others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> > > > > > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > > > > > matter within mha.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > > > > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > > > > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > > > > > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you
> > > > > even
> > > > > when you suck up to him?
> > > > > The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up
> > > > > to
> > > > > him and he still ignored you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > > > > > "opinion".
> > > > >
> > > > > I do and it is you that do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> > > > > different results.
> > > > >
> > > > > The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of
> > > > > people,which
> > > > > get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> > > > > invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> > > > > field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> > > > > promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined
> > > > > by
> > > > > the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not
> > > > > valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> > > > > > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > > > > > masses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
> > > > > > > constantly
> > > > > > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > > > > > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> > > > > that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is
> > > > > not
> > > > > a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> > > > > behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates
> > > > > the
> > > > > MBTI isn't valid at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
> > > > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > > > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > > > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > > > > > turmeric IV drip?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
> > > > >
> > > > > If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> > > > > million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > > > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big
> > > > > > > banking
> > > > > > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > > > > > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > > > > > That's one point.
> > > > > > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > > > > > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > > > > > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > > > > > influenced by warmongers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> > > > > http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admit
> > > > > s-
> > > > > fak
> > > > > e-court/
> > > > >
> > > > > "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who
> > > > > should
> > > > > never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> > > > > digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> > > > > ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> > > > > Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> > > > > see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters
> > > > > waiting
> > > > > around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> > > > > hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> > > > > essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> > > > > whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> > > > > that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> > > > > sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> > > > > admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> > > > > stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> > > > > Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> > > > > joint is really "a performance artist."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that
> > > > > the
> > > > > right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
> > > > >
> > > > > "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona,
> > > > > attorney
> > > > > Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> > > > > hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> > > > > Kelly Jones."
> > > > >
> > > > > So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> > > > > audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > > > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the
> > > > > > > study
> > > > > > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > > > > > "expert" doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> > > > > These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I
> > > > > just
> > > > > pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> > > > > interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > worthless
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not me bob.
> > > > > > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > > > > > sources".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
> > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > questioned,
> > > > > > > not mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever bob.
> > > > > > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > > > > > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > > > > > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> > > > > understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> > > > > really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can
> > > > > not
> > > > > correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your personality type is STUPid.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> > > > > > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > > > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so bob.
> > > > > > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > > > > > would be de-registered.
> > > > >
> > > > > No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors
> > > > > tout
> > > > > and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish
> > > > > oil
> > > > > capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do
> > > > > you
> > > > > know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> > > > > level is less than 100.
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> > > > > don't even need to take vitamin D.
> > > >
> > > > Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again?
> > > > It
> > > > is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> > > > pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and
> > > > then
> > > > the name calling?
> > >
> > > I do.
> > >
> > > If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
> > > her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
> > >
> > > However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
> > > the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
> > > work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
> > >
> > > Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
> > > professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
> > > it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
> > > research or evidence or data.
> >
> > I took that test two times and had a different typing each time, making that
> > test worthless. I learned to skew the results of that type of test when I
> > was
> > a kid.
> > >
> > >
> > > This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
> > > and never finds anything new.
> >
> > Just boring.
> > >
> > >
> > > She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
> > >
> > > So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
> > > walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
> > > Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
> > > riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
> > > where it will be cool.
> > >
> > > And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
> > > being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
> > > challenge.
> >
> > Calligraphy is fun. I gave it up when I developed carpel tunnel in my wrist.
> > I bought the font and started using my computer for that type of printing.
> > Now you can get so many fonts free.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
> >
> > The only set plans I have between now and June would be doctors appointments
> > (I’m laughing)and learning to use an Instant Pot. Otherwise, most
> > everything I and my friends do is spur of the moment and does not involve
> > travel of more then 20 miles or doing anything heavy. We are just too old.
> > Might work on a class reunion if we decide to have one?
>
> Let us know how you like the Instant Pot. I've heard good things about it.
> Kaye

Lot of info, videos on how to use it, FB groups where we can read
questions/answers and explain problems and recipes on the internet but
everybody seems to love it. I did the water test, slow cooked cabbage soup
and made one pasta and meat ball dish so far. I like the cabbage soup cooked
on the stove better. The pasta was a very simple dish with only a few
ingredients, pasta, a jar of sauce and a bag of frozen meatballs all thrown
into the pot, added a jar of water, covered and cooked. Getting the pot
working is the intimidating part and I messed that up a bit but eventually
got it working right. I was surprised that dry pasta came out perfect when
cooked pressure cooker mode in enough liquids. Pasta has not been on my diet
for years so froze meal sized portions but it sure was pleasing to enjoy a
bit of it for a change. My impression so far is that there is a bit of a
learning curve on this new toy. :)

Today I am going to make a pot of pea soup but in a slow cooker, not the new
pot. My next venture in the Instant Pot will beMinestrone Soup when the pea
soup is gone.
Bob Officer
2017-04-26 20:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-
>>>>>>>>>>> ef
>>>>>>>>>>> fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
>>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>>>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>>>> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>>>> bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>>>>
>>>> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
>>>> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>>>> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>>>> than your MBTI results. "
>>>>
>>>> Here is a real experts opinion
>>>>
>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-
>>>> fad
>>>> -won-t-die
>>>>
>>>> <Cite>
>>>> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
>>>> turn
>>>> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
>>>> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>>>> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>>>> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>>>> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>>>> really."
>>>>
>>>> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
>>>> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>>>> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>>>> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>>>> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>>>> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
>>>> as
>>>> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
>>>> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>>>> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
>>>> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
>>>> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>>>> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>>>> category.”"
>>>>
>>>> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
>>>> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>>>> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>>>> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
>>>> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
>>>> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
>>>> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
>>>> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
>>>> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
>>>> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
>>>> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
>>>> on
>>>> the four domains it does sample.”"
>>>>
>>>> </cite>
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
>>>> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>>>>
>>>> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
>>>> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
>>>> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
>>>> personality.
>>>>
>>>> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
>>>> PROJECTION.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>>>>> treat others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>>>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>>>>> matter within mha.
>>>>
>>>> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>>>>
>>>>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>>>>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>>>>
>>>> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
>>>> when you suck up to him?
>>>> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
>>>> him and he still ignored you.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
>>>>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>>>>> "opinion".
>>>>
>>>> I do and it is you that do not.
>>>>
>>>> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
>>>> different results.
>>>>
>>>> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
>>>> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
>>>> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
>>>> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
>>>> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
>>>> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>>>>> masses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>>>>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>>>>
>>>> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
>>>> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
>>>> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
>>>> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
>>>> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>>>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>>>>
>>>> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>>>>
>>>> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
>>>> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>>>>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>>>>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>>>>> That's one point.
>>>>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>>>>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>>>>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>>>>> influenced by warmongers.
>>>>
>>>> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
>>>> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-
>>>> fak
>>>> e-court/
>>>>
>>>> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
>>>> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
>>>> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
>>>> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
>>>> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
>>>> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
>>>> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
>>>> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
>>>> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
>>>> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
>>>> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
>>>> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>>>>
>>>> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
>>>> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>>>>
>>>> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
>>>> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
>>>> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
>>>> joint is really "a performance artist."
>>>>
>>>> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
>>>> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>>>>
>>>> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
>>>> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
>>>> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
>>>> Kelly Jones."
>>>>
>>>> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
>>>> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>>>>
>>>> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>>>>
>>>> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>>>>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>>>>> "expert" doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
>>>> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
>>>> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
>>>> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not me bob.
>>>>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>>>>> sources".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
>>>>>> ones
>>>>>> questioned,
>>>>>> not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever bob.
>>>>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>>>>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>>>>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
>>>> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
>>>> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
>>>> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>>>>
>>>> Your personality type is STUPid.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so bob.
>>>>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>>>>> would be de-registered.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
>>>> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
>>>> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
>>>> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
>>>> level is less than 100.
>>>>
>>>> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
>>>> don't even need to take vitamin D.
>>>
>>> Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
>>> is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
>>> pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
>>> the name calling?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
>> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>>
>> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
>> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
>> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>>
>> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
>> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
>> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
>> research or evidence or data.
>
> I took that test two times and had a different typing each time, making that
> test worthless. I learned to skew the results of that type of test when I was
> a kid.

For nearly 30 years is was use in the admission process in many schools and
for granting scholarship. To the sham of those institutions, the law suits
are now being settled and sealed.
>>
>> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
>> and never finds anything new.
>
> Just boring.

Maybe I just need to ignore her for a while.

>>
>> She isn't an Altie, she is simply an attention whore.
>>
>> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
>> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
>> Started a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
>> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
>> where it will be cool.
>>
>> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
>> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
>> challenge.
>
> Calligraphy is fun. I gave it up when I developed carpel tunnel in my wrist.
> I bought the font and started using my computer for that type of printing.
> Now you can get so many fonts free.

You understand the principle of use it or loose it. The drive to learn new
things, sometimes even those skills deemed useless by many, seems to be
part of my base makeup.

The drive to make art is not to make money but to satisfy the artist. If he
can make real money doing it, that is so much better. I recent watched a
PBS special (1st TV I watched in years) on Georgia O'Keeffe, and artist
which produced some very remarkable art, not for sale or to make money, but
to feed her inner need.


>> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
>
> The only set plans I have between now and June would be doctors appointments
> (I’m laughing)and learning to use an Instant Pot. Otherwise, most

That is like a cross between a pressure cooker and crockpot isn't it? I
have seen some talk about them on the RV Groups and forums.

> everything I and my friends do is spur of the moment and does not involve
> travel of more then 20 miles or doing anything heavy. We are just too old.
> Might work on a class reunion if we decide to have one?

I am going to retirees reunion. The number of people which are being
employee in that field shrink every year, because of more and more
automation. Where a switching station might have had three or four
technicians per shift and at least one control operator, with computerized
control and remote controlled operations, only one technician per switch
site. Some companies use on call techs which can make a longer power
outage.

I am glad I have the ability to live off grid.



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-04-27 17:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placeb
> > > > > > > > > > > > o-
> > > > > > > > > > > > ef
> > > > > > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike
> > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs
> > > > > > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take
> > > > > > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed
> > > > > > > > > > > > aside
> > > > > > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing
> > > > > > > > > > > > establishment
> > > > > > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other
> > > > > > > > > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
> > > > > > > > > procedures
> > > > > > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > > > > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rubbish.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> > > > > not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every
> > > > > they
> > > > > want.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> > > > > bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
> > > > >
> > > > > "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only
> > > > > you
> > > > > can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> > > > > circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> > > > > than your MBTI results. "
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a real experts opinion
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-th
> > > > > e-
> > > > > fad
> > > > > -won-t-die
> > > > >
> > > > > <Cite>
> > > > > "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
> > > > > turn
> > > > > to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue
> > > > > with
> > > > > the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> > > > > categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> > > > > standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> > > > > comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> > > > > really."
> > > > >
> > > > > "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different
> > > > > sources.
> > > > > If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> > > > > different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> > > > > reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> > > > > when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> > > > > foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
> > > > > as
> > > > > many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality
> > > > > type
> > > > > when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> > > > > Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the
> > > > > Myers-Briggs
> > > > > have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman
> > > > > Krznaric
> > > > > adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> > > > > around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> > > > > category.”"
> > > > >
> > > > > "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of
> > > > > the
> > > > > key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> > > > > emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> > > > > collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> > > > > important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought,
> > > > > feeling,
> > > > > and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> > > > > judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a
> > > > > planner,
> > > > > but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> > > > > accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> > > > > called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> > > > > Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
> > > > > on
> > > > > the four domains it does sample.”"
> > > > >
> > > > > </cite>
> > > > >
> > > > > Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is
> > > > > not
> > > > > a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
> > > > >
> > > > > More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality
> > > > > type
> > > > > is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> > > > > around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> > > > > personality.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > > > PROJECTION.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> > > > > > > > treat others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> > > > > > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > > > > > matter within mha.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > > > > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > > > > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > > > > > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you
> > > > > even
> > > > > when you suck up to him?
> > > > > The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up
> > > > > to
> > > > > him and he still ignored you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > > > > > "opinion".
> > > > >
> > > > > I do and it is you that do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> > > > > different results.
> > > > >
> > > > > The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of
> > > > > people,which
> > > > > get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> > > > > invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> > > > > field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> > > > > promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined
> > > > > by
> > > > > the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not
> > > > > valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> > > > > > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > > > > > masses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
> > > > > > > constantly
> > > > > > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > > > > > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> > > > > that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is
> > > > > not
> > > > > a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> > > > > behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates
> > > > > the
> > > > > MBTI isn't valid at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
> > > > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > > > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > > > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > > > > > turmeric IV drip?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
> > > > >
> > > > > If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> > > > > million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > > > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big
> > > > > > > banking
> > > > > > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > > > > > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > > > > > That's one point.
> > > > > > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > > > > > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > > > > > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > > > > > influenced by warmongers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> > > > > http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admit
> > > > > s-
> > > > > fak
> > > > > e-court/
> > > > >
> > > > > "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who
> > > > > should
> > > > > never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> > > > > digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> > > > > ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> > > > > Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> > > > > see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters
> > > > > waiting
> > > > > around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> > > > > hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> > > > > essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> > > > > whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> > > > > that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> > > > > sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> > > > > admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> > > > > stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> > > > > Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> > > > > joint is really "a performance artist."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that
> > > > > the
> > > > > right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
> > > > >
> > > > > "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona,
> > > > > attorney
> > > > > Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> > > > > hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> > > > > Kelly Jones."
> > > > >
> > > > > So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> > > > > audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > > > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the
> > > > > > > study
> > > > > > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > > > > > "expert" doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> > > > > These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I
> > > > > just
> > > > > pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> > > > > interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > worthless
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not me bob.
> > > > > > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > > > > > sources".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
> > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > questioned,
> > > > > > > not mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever bob.
> > > > > > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > > > > > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > > > > > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> > > > > understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> > > > > really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can
> > > > > not
> > > > > correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your personality type is STUPid.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> > > > > > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > > > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so bob.
> > > > > > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > > > > > would be de-registered.
> > > > >
> > > > > No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors
> > > > > tout
> > > > > and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish
> > > > > oil
> > > > > capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do
> > > > > you
> > > > > know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> > > > > level is less than 100.
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> > > > > don't even need to take vitamin D.
> > > >
> > > > Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again?
> > > > It
> > > > is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> > > > pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and
> > > > then
> > > > the name calling?
> > >
> > > I do.
> > >
> > > If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
> > > her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
> > >
> > > However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
> > > the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
> > > work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
> > >
> > > Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
> > > professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
> > > it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
> > > research or evidence or data.
> >
> > I took that test two times and had a different typing each time, making that
> > test worthless. I learned to skew the results of that type of test when I
> > was
> > a kid.
>
> For nearly 30 years is was use in the admission process in many schools and
> for granting scholarship. To the sham of those institutions, the law suits
> are now being settled and sealed.
> > >
> > > This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
> > > and never finds anything new.
> >
> > Just boring.
>
> Maybe I just need to ignore her for a while.
>
>
> > >
> > > She isn't an Altie, she is simply an attention whore.
> > >
> > > So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
> > > walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
> > > Started a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
> > > riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
> > > where it will be cool.
> > >
> > > And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
> > > being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
> > > challenge.
> >
> > Calligraphy is fun. I gave it up when I developed carpel tunnel in my wrist.
> > I bought the font and started using my computer for that type of printing.
> > Now you can get so many fonts free.
>
> You understand the principle of use it or loose it. The drive to learn new
> things, sometimes even those skills deemed useless by many, seems to be
> part of my base makeup.

I know about that drive to learn new things. I always thought of that as a
challenge that I had to overcome and I usually did/do. Learning calligraphy
was one of those challenges. Soldering that power switch into my desktop
computer is going to be my next one unless I replace the fan in an old HP
laptop first. :D

> The drive to make art is not to make money but to satisfy the artist. If he
> can make real money doing it, that is so much better. I recent watched a
> PBS special (1st TV I watched in years) on Georgia O'Keeffe, and artist
> which produced some very remarkable art, not for sale or to make money, but
> to feed her inner need.
>
> > > What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
> >
> > The only set plans I have between now and June would be doctors appointments
> > (I’m laughing)and learning to use an Instant Pot. Otherwise, most
>
> That is like a cross between a pressure cooker and crockpot isn't it? I
> have seen some talk about them on the RV Groups and forums.

Actually this new one has 7 functions. Pressure cooking and slow cooking are
two of them. Also has separate buttons/programs for Soup, Meat/Stew,
Bean/Chili, Poultry, Saute, Rice, Multigrain, Porridge, Steam, Yogurt. Can
also be used in manual mode with me setting times, pressure etc. I can brown
the meat, onions, etc before making the stew. There is a learning curve. When
I read the comments on this pot a lot of people are intimidated by it but not
too many failures when people finally try it out.
>
>
> > everything I and my friends do is spur of the moment and does not involve
> > travel of more then 20 miles or doing anything heavy. We are just too old.
> > Might work on a class reunion if we decide to have one?
>
> I am going to retirees reunion. The number of people which are being
> employee in that field shrink every year, because of more and more
> automation. Where a switching station might have had three or four
> technicians per shift and at least one control operator, with computerized
> control and remote controlled operations, only one technician per switch
> site. Some companies use on call techs which can make a longer power
> outage.
>
> I am glad I have the ability to live off grid.
Bob Officer
2017-04-28 15:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placeb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> o-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ef
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other
>>>>>>>>>>>> people,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
>>>>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>>>>>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>>>>>> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>>>>>> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>>>>>> than your MBTI results. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a real experts opinion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-th
>>>>>> e-
>>>>>> fad
>>>>>> -won-t-die
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Cite>
>>>>>> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
>>>>>> turn
>>>>>> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>>>>>> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>>>>>> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>>>>>> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>>>>>> really."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different
>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>>>>>> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>>>>>> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>>>>>> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>>>>>> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>>>>>> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the
>>>>>> Myers-Briggs
>>>>>> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman
>>>>>> Krznaric
>>>>>> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>>>>>> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>>>>>> category.”"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>>>>>> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>>>>>> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
>>>>>> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought,
>>>>>> feeling,
>>>>>> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
>>>>>> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a
>>>>>> planner,
>>>>>> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
>>>>>> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
>>>>>> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
>>>>>> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the four domains it does sample.”"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </cite>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
>>>>>> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
>>>>>> personality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
>>>>>> PROJECTION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>>>>>>> treat others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>>>>>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>>>>>>> matter within mha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>>>>>>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> when you suck up to him?
>>>>>> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> him and he still ignored you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>>>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>>>>>>> "opinion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do and it is you that do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of
>>>>>> people,which
>>>>>> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
>>>>>> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
>>>>>> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
>>>>>> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not
>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>>>>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>>>>>>> masses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
>>>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>>>>>>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
>>>>>> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
>>>>>> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>>>>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>>>>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>>>>>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
>>>>>> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>>>>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big
>>>>>>>> banking
>>>>>>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>>>>>>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>>>>>>> That's one point.
>>>>>>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>>>>>>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>>>>>>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>>>>>>> influenced by warmongers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
>>>>>> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admit
>>>>>> s-
>>>>>> fak
>>>>>> e-court/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
>>>>>> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
>>>>>> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
>>>>>> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
>>>>>> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters
>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
>>>>>> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
>>>>>> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
>>>>>> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
>>>>>> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
>>>>>> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
>>>>>> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
>>>>>> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
>>>>>> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
>>>>>> joint is really "a performance artist."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona,
>>>>>> attorney
>>>>>> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
>>>>>> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
>>>>>> Kelly Jones."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
>>>>>> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>>>>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the
>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>>>>>>> "expert" doctrine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
>>>>>> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
>>>>>> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not me bob.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>>>>>>> sources".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>> questioned,
>>>>>>>> not mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever bob.
>>>>>>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>>>>>>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>>>>>>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
>>>>>> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
>>>>>> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your personality type is STUPid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>>>>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>>>>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so bob.
>>>>>>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>>>>>>> would be de-registered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors
>>>>>> tout
>>>>>> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish
>>>>>> oil
>>>>>> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
>>>>>> level is less than 100.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
>>>>>> don't even need to take vitamin D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again?
>>>>> It
>>>>> is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
>>>>> pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and
>>>>> then
>>>>> the name calling?
>>>>
>>>> I do.
>>>>
>>>> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
>>>> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>>>>
>>>> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
>>>> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
>>>> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>>>>
>>>> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
>>>> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
>>>> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
>>>> research or evidence or data.
>>>
>>> I took that test two times and had a different typing each time, making that
>>> test worthless. I learned to skew the results of that type of test when I
>>> was
>>> a kid.
>>
>> For nearly 30 years is was use in the admission process in many schools and
>> for granting scholarship. To the sham of those institutions, the law suits
>> are now being settled and sealed.
>>>>
>>>> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
>>>> and never finds anything new.
>>>
>>> Just boring.
>>
>> Maybe I just need to ignore her for a while.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> She isn't an Altie, she is simply an attention whore.
>>>>
>>>> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
>>>> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
>>>> Started a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
>>>> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
>>>> where it will be cool.
>>>>
>>>> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
>>>> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
>>>> challenge.
>>>
>>> Calligraphy is fun. I gave it up when I developed carpel tunnel in my wrist.
>>> I bought the font and started using my computer for that type of printing.
>>> Now you can get so many fonts free.
>>
>> You understand the principle of use it or loose it. The drive to learn new
>> things, sometimes even those skills deemed useless by many, seems to be
>> part of my base makeup.
>
> I know about that drive to learn new things. I always thought of that as a
> challenge that I had to overcome and I usually did/do. Learning calligraphy
> was one of those challenges. Soldering that power switch into my desktop
> computer is going to be my next one unless I replace the fan in an old HP
> laptop first. :D

I like that a fellow traveler. Those electrical repairs for me seem to be
no brainers.
This weekend I am teaching a class in basic soldering for new hams radio
operators.

>> The drive to make art is not to make money but to satisfy the artist. If he
>> can make real money doing it, that is so much better. I recent watched a
>> PBS special (1st TV I watched in years) on Georgia O'Keeffe, and artist
>> which produced some very remarkable art, not for sale or to make money, but
>> to feed her inner need.
>>
>>>> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
>>>
>>> The only set plans I have between now and June would be doctors appointments
>>> (I’m laughing)and learning to use an Instant Pot. Otherwise, most
>>
>> That is like a cross between a pressure cooker and crockpot isn't it? I
>> have seen some talk about them on the RV Groups and forums.
>
> Actually this new one has 7 functions. Pressure cooking and slow cooking are
> two of them. Also has separate buttons/programs for Soup, Meat/Stew,
> Bean/Chili, Poultry, Saute, Rice, Multigrain, Porridge, Steam, Yogurt. Can
> also be used in manual mode with me setting times, pressure etc. I can brown
> the meat, onions, etc before making the stew. There is a learning curve. When
> I read the comments on this pot a lot of people are intimidated by it but not
> too many failures when people finally try it out.

We could eliminate our slow cooker and rice steamer. (I only eat steamed
brown rice)


>>> everything I and my friends do is spur of the moment and does not involve
>>> travel of more then 20 miles or doing anything heavy. We are just too old.
>>> Might work on a class reunion if we decide to have one?
>>
>> I am going to retirees reunion. The number of people which are being
>> employee in that field shrink every year, because of more and more
>> automation. Where a switching station might have had three or four
>> technicians per shift and at least one control operator, with computerized
>> control and remote controlled operations, only one technician per switch
>> site. Some companies use on call techs which can make a longer power
>> outage.
>>
>> I am glad I have the ability to live off grid.
>
>
>



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-04-25 03:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-
> > > > > > > > > > ef
> > > > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
> > > > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
> > > > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
> > > > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
> > > > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
> > > > > > > procedures
> > > > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > Rubbish.
> > >
> > > No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
> > >
> > > . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> > > not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
> > > want.
> > >
> > > That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> > > bullshit.
> > >
> > > http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
> > >
> > > "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
> > > can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> > > circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> > > than your MBTI results. "
> > >
> > > Here is a real experts opinion
> > >
> > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-
> > > fad
> > > -won-t-die
> > >
> > > <Cite>
> > > "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
> > > turn
> > > to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
> > > the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> > > categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> > > standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> > > comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> > > really."
> > >
> > > "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
> > > If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> > > different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> > > reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> > > when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> > > foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
> > > as
> > > many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
> > > when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> > > Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
> > > have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
> > > adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> > > around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> > > category.”"
> > >
> > > "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
> > > key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> > > emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> > > collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> > > important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
> > > and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> > > judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
> > > but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> > > accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> > > called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> > > Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
> > > on
> > > the four domains it does sample.”"
> > >
> > > </cite>
> > >
> > > Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
> > > a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
> > >
> > > More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
> > > is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> > > around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> > > personality.
> > >
> > > What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > PROJECTION.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> > > > > > treat others.
> > > > >
> > > > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> > > > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> > > >
> > > > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > > > matter within mha.
> > >
> > > The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> > > >
> > > > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > > > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
> > >
> > > You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
> > > when you suck up to him?
> > > The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
> > > him and he still ignored you.
> > >
> > > > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > > > >
> > > > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > > > "opinion".
> > >
> > > I do and it is you that do not.
> > >
> > > Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> > > different results.
> > >
> > > The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
> > > get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> > > invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> > > field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> > > promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
> > > the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> > > > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > > > masses.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
> > > > > You
> > > > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
> > > > > constantly
> > > > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> > > >
> > > > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > > > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
> > >
> > > Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> > > that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
> > > a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> > > behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
> > > MBTI isn't valid at all.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
> > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > > > turmeric IV drip?
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
> > >
> > > Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
> > >
> > > If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> > > million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
> > >
> > > Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > > > >
> > > > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
> > > > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > > > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > > > That's one point.
> > > > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > > > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > > > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > > > influenced by warmongers.
> > >
> > > Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> > > http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-
> > > fak
> > > e-court/
> > >
> > > "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
> > > never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> > > digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> > > ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> > > Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> > > see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
> > > around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> > > hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> > > essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> > > whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> > > that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> > > sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
> > >
> > > But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> > > admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
> > >
> > > The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> > > stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> > > Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> > > joint is really "a performance artist."
> > >
> > > That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
> > > right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
> > >
> > > "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
> > > Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> > > hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> > > Kelly Jones."
> > >
> > > So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> > > audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
> > >
> > > And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
> > >
> > > Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
> > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
> > > > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > > > "expert" doctrine.
> > >
> > > So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> > > These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
> > > pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> > > interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not me bob.
> > > > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > > > sources".
> > > > >
> > > > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
> > > > > ones
> > > > > questioned,
> > > > > not mine.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever bob.
> > > > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > > > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > > > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
> > >
> > > You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> > > understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> > > really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
> > > correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
> > >
> > > Your personality type is STUPid.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> > > > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > > > >
> > > > > Every day.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so bob.
> > > > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > > > would be de-registered.
> > >
> > > No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
> > > and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
> > > capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
> > > know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> > > level is less than 100.
> > >
> > > And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> > > don't even need to take vitamin D.
> >
> > Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
> > is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> > pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
> > the name calling?
>
> I do.
>
> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>
> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>
> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
> research or evidence or data.
>
> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
> and never finds anything new.
>
> She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
>
> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
> Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
> where it will be cool.
>
> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
> challenge.
>
> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?

One of the things I like to do is find out how things work. this causes me to
take things apart when they break and I usually end up fixing it if I can.
Little things like small appliances and some of this high tech stuff. Right
now I have three broken computers sitting here and on two, the repairs are
very simple. The third one the repair is simple, replacement of the power
button, but requires soldering and I am not good at that at all. Could be the
cheap iron??? Maybe I should just practice?
Bob Officer
2017-04-26 20:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-
>>>>>>>>>>> ef
>>>>>>>>>>> fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people,
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
>>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>>>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>>>> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>>>> bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>>>>
>>>> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
>>>> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>>>> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>>>> than your MBTI results. "
>>>>
>>>> Here is a real experts opinion
>>>>
>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-
>>>> fad
>>>> -won-t-die
>>>>
>>>> <Cite>
>>>> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
>>>> turn
>>>> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
>>>> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>>>> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>>>> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>>>> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>>>> really."
>>>>
>>>> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
>>>> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>>>> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>>>> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>>>> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>>>> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
>>>> as
>>>> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
>>>> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>>>> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
>>>> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
>>>> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>>>> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>>>> category.”"
>>>>
>>>> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
>>>> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>>>> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>>>> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
>>>> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought, feeling,
>>>> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
>>>> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a planner,
>>>> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
>>>> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
>>>> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
>>>> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
>>>> on
>>>> the four domains it does sample.”"
>>>>
>>>> </cite>
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is not
>>>> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>>>>
>>>> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality type
>>>> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
>>>> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
>>>> personality.
>>>>
>>>> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
>>>> PROJECTION.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>>>>> treat others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>>>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>>>>> matter within mha.
>>>>
>>>> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>>>>
>>>>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>>>>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>>>>
>>>> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you even
>>>> when you suck up to him?
>>>> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up to
>>>> him and he still ignored you.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
>>>>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>>>>> "opinion".
>>>>
>>>> I do and it is you that do not.
>>>>
>>>> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
>>>> different results.
>>>>
>>>> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of people,which
>>>> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
>>>> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
>>>> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
>>>> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined by
>>>> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not valid.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>>>>> masses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>>>>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>>>>
>>>> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
>>>> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is not
>>>> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
>>>> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates the
>>>> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>>>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>>>>
>>>> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>>>>
>>>> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
>>>> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big banking
>>>>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>>>>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>>>>> That's one point.
>>>>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>>>>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>>>>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>>>>> influenced by warmongers.
>>>>
>>>> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
>>>> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admits-
>>>> fak
>>>> e-court/
>>>>
>>>> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who should
>>>> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
>>>> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
>>>> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
>>>> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
>>>> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters waiting
>>>> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
>>>> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
>>>> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
>>>> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
>>>> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
>>>> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>>>>
>>>> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
>>>> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>>>>
>>>> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
>>>> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
>>>> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
>>>> joint is really "a performance artist."
>>>>
>>>> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that the
>>>> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>>>>
>>>> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona, attorney
>>>> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
>>>> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
>>>> Kelly Jones."
>>>>
>>>> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
>>>> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>>>>
>>>> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>>>>
>>>> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the study
>>>>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>>>>> "expert" doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
>>>> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I just
>>>> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
>>>> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is worthless
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not me bob.
>>>>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>>>>> sources".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
>>>>>> ones
>>>>>> questioned,
>>>>>> not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever bob.
>>>>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>>>>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>>>>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
>>>> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
>>>> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can not
>>>> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>>>>
>>>> Your personality type is STUPid.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so bob.
>>>>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>>>>> would be de-registered.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors tout
>>>> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish oil
>>>> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do you
>>>> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
>>>> level is less than 100.
>>>>
>>>> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
>>>> don't even need to take vitamin D.
>>>
>>> Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again? It
>>> is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
>>> pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and then
>>> the name calling?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
>> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>>
>> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
>> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
>> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>>
>> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
>> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
>> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
>> research or evidence or data.
>>
>> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
>> and never finds anything new.
>>
>> She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
>>
>> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
>> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
>> Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
>> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
>> where it will be cool.
>>
>> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
>> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
>> challenge.
>>
>> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
>
> One of the things I like to do is find out how things work. this causes me to
> take things apart when they break and I usually end up fixing it if I can.
> Little things like small appliances and some of this high tech stuff. Right
> now I have three broken computers sitting here and on two, the repairs are
> very simple. The third one the repair is simple, replacement of the power
> button, but requires soldering and I am not good at that at all. Could be the
> cheap iron??? Maybe I should just practice?

Practice. Heat the wire or the lug with the iron and apply the solder to
lug not iron. It that doesn't work you need a hotter iron, because you are
heating a lot of metal.



--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-04-27 17:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placeb
> > > > > > > > > > > > o-
> > > > > > > > > > > > ef
> > > > > > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike
> > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs
> > > > > > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take
> > > > > > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed
> > > > > > > > > > > > aside
> > > > > > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing
> > > > > > > > > > > > establishment
> > > > > > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other
> > > > > > > > > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
> > > > > > > > > procedures
> > > > > > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > > > > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rubbish.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
> > > > > not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every
> > > > > they
> > > > > want.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> > > > > bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
> > > > >
> > > > > "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only
> > > > > you
> > > > > can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> > > > > circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
> > > > > than your MBTI results. "
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a real experts opinion
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-th
> > > > > e-
> > > > > fad
> > > > > -won-t-die
> > > > >
> > > > > <Cite>
> > > > > "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
> > > > > turn
> > > > > to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue
> > > > > with
> > > > > the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> > > > > categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> > > > > standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> > > > > comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
> > > > > really."
> > > > >
> > > > > "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different
> > > > > sources.
> > > > > If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> > > > > different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> > > > > reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
> > > > > when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
> > > > > foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
> > > > > as
> > > > > many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality
> > > > > type
> > > > > when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
> > > > > Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the
> > > > > Myers-Briggs
> > > > > have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman
> > > > > Krznaric
> > > > > adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> > > > > around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> > > > > category.”"
> > > > >
> > > > > "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of
> > > > > the
> > > > > key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
> > > > > emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> > > > > collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
> > > > > important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought,
> > > > > feeling,
> > > > > and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> > > > > judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a
> > > > > planner,
> > > > > but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> > > > > accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
> > > > > called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
> > > > > Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
> > > > > on
> > > > > the four domains it does sample.”"
> > > > >
> > > > > </cite>
> > > > >
> > > > > Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is
> > > > > not
> > > > > a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
> > > > >
> > > > > More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality
> > > > > type
> > > > > is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
> > > > > around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> > > > > personality.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > > > PROJECTION.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
> > > > > > > > treat others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
> > > > > > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > > > > > matter within mha.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
> > > > > > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
> > > > > > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > > > > > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you
> > > > > even
> > > > > when you suck up to him?
> > > > > The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up
> > > > > to
> > > > > him and he still ignored you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > > > > > "opinion".
> > > > >
> > > > > I do and it is you that do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> > > > > different results.
> > > > >
> > > > > The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of
> > > > > people,which
> > > > > get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> > > > > invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> > > > > field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
> > > > > promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined
> > > > > by
> > > > > the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not
> > > > > valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
> > > > > > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > > > > > masses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
> > > > > > > constantly
> > > > > > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > > > > > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
> > > > > that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is
> > > > > not
> > > > > a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
> > > > > behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates
> > > > > the
> > > > > MBTI isn't valid at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
> > > > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > > > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > > > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > > > > > turmeric IV drip?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
> > > > >
> > > > > If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> > > > > million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > > > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big
> > > > > > > banking
> > > > > > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > > > > > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > > > > > That's one point.
> > > > > > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > > > > > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > > > > > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > > > > > influenced by warmongers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> > > > > http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admit
> > > > > s-
> > > > > fak
> > > > > e-court/
> > > > >
> > > > > "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who
> > > > > should
> > > > > never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> > > > > digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
> > > > > ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> > > > > Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
> > > > > see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters
> > > > > waiting
> > > > > around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> > > > > hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> > > > > essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> > > > > whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> > > > > that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> > > > > sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> > > > > admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> > > > > stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
> > > > > Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
> > > > > joint is really "a performance artist."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that
> > > > > the
> > > > > right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
> > > > >
> > > > > "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona,
> > > > > attorney
> > > > > Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> > > > > hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
> > > > > Kelly Jones."
> > > > >
> > > > > So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> > > > > audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
> > > > > > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > > > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the
> > > > > > > study
> > > > > > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > > > > > "expert" doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> > > > > These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I
> > > > > just
> > > > > pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> > > > > interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > worthless
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not me bob.
> > > > > > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > > > > > sources".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
> > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > questioned,
> > > > > > > not mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever bob.
> > > > > > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > > > > > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > > > > > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
> > > > > understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> > > > > really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can
> > > > > not
> > > > > correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your personality type is STUPid.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
> > > > > > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > > > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so bob.
> > > > > > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > > > > > would be de-registered.
> > > > >
> > > > > No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors
> > > > > tout
> > > > > and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish
> > > > > oil
> > > > > capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do
> > > > > you
> > > > > know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> > > > > level is less than 100.
> > > > >
> > > > > And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> > > > > don't even need to take vitamin D.
> > > >
> > > > Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again?
> > > > It
> > > > is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> > > > pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and
> > > > then
> > > > the name calling?
> > >
> > > I do.
> > >
> > > If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
> > > her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
> > >
> > > However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
> > > the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
> > > work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
> > >
> > > Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
> > > professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
> > > it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
> > > research or evidence or data.
> > >
> > > This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
> > > and never finds anything new.
> > >
> > > She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
> > >
> > > So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
> > > walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
> > > Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
> > > riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
> > > where it will be cool.
> > >
> > > And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
> > > being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
> > > challenge.
> > >
> > > What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
> >
> > One of the things I like to do is find out how things work. this causes me
> > to
> > take things apart when they break and I usually end up fixing it if I can.
> > Little things like small appliances and some of this high tech stuff. Right
> > now I have three broken computers sitting here and on two, the repairs are
> > very simple. The third one the repair is simple, replacement of the power
> > button, but requires soldering and I am not good at that at all. Could be
> > the
> > cheap iron??? Maybe I should just practice?
>
> Practice. Heat the wire or the lug with the iron and apply the solder to
> lug not iron. It that doesn't work you need a hotter iron, because you are
> heating a lot of metal.

Heat and apply the solder to the item I am attaching to the circuit board
rather then the board itself???? That makes better sense if that is what you
mean. The Iron I have used in the past is a real cheap one and I will watch a
few of those videos on the internet to learn how to do this and then,
practice, practice, practice with that before I attempt to solder that power
switch (or what ever it is called. I was never any good at applying the
correct names of electronic parts) to the circuit board. If I had more use
for it I would buy a good Iron.
Bob Officer
2017-04-27 20:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placeb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> o-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ef
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESTJs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other
>>>>>>>>>>>> people,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's
>>>>>>>>>>>> personalities
>>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
>>>>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>>>>>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>>>>>> not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>>>>>> circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>>>>>> than your MBTI results. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a real experts opinion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-th
>>>>>> e-
>>>>>> fad
>>>>>> -won-t-die
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Cite>
>>>>>> "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to
>>>>>> turn
>>>>>> to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>>>>>> categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>>>>>> standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>>>>>> comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>>>>>> really."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different
>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>> If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>>>>>> different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>>>>>> reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>>>>>> when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>>>>>> foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>>>>>> Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the
>>>>>> Myers-Briggs
>>>>>> have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman
>>>>>> Krznaric
>>>>>> adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>>>>>> around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>>>>>> category.”"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>>>>>> emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>>>>>> collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the most
>>>>>> important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought,
>>>>>> feeling,
>>>>>> and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
>>>>>> judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a
>>>>>> planner,
>>>>>> but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
>>>>>> accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality trait
>>>>>> called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae and
>>>>>> Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive information
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the four domains it does sample.”"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </cite>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and people
>>>>>> around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
>>>>>> personality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
>>>>>> PROJECTION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way you
>>>>>>>>> treat others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are willful
>>>>>>>> ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
>>>>>>> matter within mha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>> continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate what
>>>>>>>>>>> people should believe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
>>>>>>> how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> when you suck up to him?
>>>>>> The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> him and he still ignored you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out when
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>>>>>>> or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You push your opinions onto others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I state facts. Not opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
>>>>>>> "opinion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do and it is you that do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of
>>>>>> people,which
>>>>>> get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
>>>>>> invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
>>>>>> field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that jobs,
>>>>>> promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not
>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current doctored
>>>>>>>>> mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
>>>>>>>>> masses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and SUPERSTITION.
>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>> lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
>>>>>>>> constantly
>>>>>>>> repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
>>>>>>> "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was just
>>>>>> that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no science
>>>>>> behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> MBTI isn't valid at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>> are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
>>>>>>>>> Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
>>>>>>>>> game in town. This just isn't true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
>>>>>>>> turmeric IV drip?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
>>>>>> million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks heavens for Trump.
>>>>>>>>> I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big
>>>>>>>> banking
>>>>>>>> and big industry and big pharma left and right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
>>>>>>> to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
>>>>>>> That's one point.
>>>>>>> I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
>>>>>>> Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
>>>>>>> Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
>>>>>>> influenced by warmongers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
>>>>>> http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-admit
>>>>>> s-
>>>>>> fak
>>>>>> e-court/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
>>>>>> digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick is
>>>>>> ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
>>>>>> Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods who
>>>>>> see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters
>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>> around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
>>>>>> hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
>>>>>> essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
>>>>>> whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
>>>>>> that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
>>>>>> sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
>>>>>> admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
>>>>>> stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and about
>>>>>> Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza
>>>>>> joint is really "a performance artist."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona,
>>>>>> attorney
>>>>>> Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
>>>>>> hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with ex-wife
>>>>>> Kelly Jones."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
>>>>>> audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the label
>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
>>>>>>>>>>> myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past, and
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> real future except as entertainment for people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
>>>>>>>>> called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the
>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>> you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
>>>>>>> "expert" doctrine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
>>>>>> These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
>>>>>> interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> worthless
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes in parlor games for amusement only
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are a pawn bob, admit it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No Carole, the pawn is you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not me bob.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
>>>>>>>>> sources".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>> questioned,
>>>>>>>> not mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever bob.
>>>>>>> The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
>>>>>>> out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
>>>>>>> order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do not
>>>>>> understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
>>>>>> really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your personality type is STUPid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The studies have all been done that various nutrients have therapeutic
>>>>>>>>> effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
>>>>>>>>> nutrient for any condition?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so bob.
>>>>>>> If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
>>>>>>> would be de-registered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors
>>>>>> tout
>>>>>> and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish
>>>>>> oil
>>>>>> capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
>>>>>> level is less than 100.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
>>>>>> don't even need to take vitamin D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over again?
>>>>> It
>>>>> is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
>>>>> pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and
>>>>> then
>>>>> the name calling?
>>>>
>>>> I do.
>>>>
>>>> If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations of
>>>> her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
>>>>
>>>> However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
>>>> the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication and
>>>> work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
>>>>
>>>> Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to certain
>>>> professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong and
>>>> it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
>>>> research or evidence or data.
>>>>
>>>> This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
>>>> and never finds anything new.
>>>>
>>>> She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
>>>>
>>>> So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
>>>> walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
>>>> Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
>>>> riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the coast
>>>> where it will be cool.
>>>>
>>>> And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
>>>> being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like a
>>>> challenge.
>>>>
>>>> What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
>>>
>>> One of the things I like to do is find out how things work. this causes me
>>> to
>>> take things apart when they break and I usually end up fixing it if I can.
>>> Little things like small appliances and some of this high tech stuff. Right
>>> now I have three broken computers sitting here and on two, the repairs are
>>> very simple. The third one the repair is simple, replacement of the power
>>> button, but requires soldering and I am not good at that at all. Could be
>>> the
>>> cheap iron??? Maybe I should just practice?
>>
>> Practice. Heat the wire or the lug with the iron and apply the solder to
>> lug not iron. It that doesn't work you need a hotter iron, because you are
>> heating a lot of metal.
>
> Heat and apply the solder to the item I am attaching to the circuit board
> rather then the board itself????

Exact. The foil on circuit boards is fairly fragile.

Heat and tin (apply a bit of solder to what you are applying to the board).
Then and only then place the part on the board or thru the hole in the
board, and heat until the solder starts to floe tap a bit more solder and
let cool without moving the part. It should only take a few seconds (10).

>That makes better sense if that is what you
> mean. The Iron I have used in the past is a real cheap one and I will watch a
> few of those videos on the internet to learn how to do this and then,
> practice, practice, practice with that before I attempt to solder that power
> switch (or what ever it is called. I was never any good at applying the
> correct names of electronic parts) to the circuit board. If I had more use
> for it I would buy a good Iron.

You can have fun, building stuff is fun.




--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-04-29 01:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 27, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
> > > > > > > > > > > > <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-plac
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > eb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > o-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ef
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ESTJs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and dictate what is and what isn't true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > establishment principle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > establishment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sources doesn't make something true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you project your own psychological faults on other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and should not take the test or project what other people's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > personalities
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This holds true most of the time bob.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals,
> > > > > > > > > > > procedures
> > > > > > > > > > > or policies, states that?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You have no comprehension skills bob.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
> > > > > > > > > Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rubbish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > . Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > want.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
> > > > > > > bullshit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
> > > > > > > circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > than your MBTI results. "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is a real experts opinion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-
> > > > > > > th
> > > > > > > e-
> > > > > > > fad
> > > > > > > -won-t-die
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <Cite>
> > > > > > > "Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > turn
> > > > > > > to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
> > > > > > > categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
> > > > > > > standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
> > > > > > > comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > really."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different
> > > > > > > sources.
> > > > > > > If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
> > > > > > > different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
> > > > > > > reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar
> > > > > > > scores
> > > > > > > when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent
> > > > > > > scores
> > > > > > > foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows
> > > > > > > “that
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of
> > > > > > > Personality
> > > > > > > Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the
> > > > > > > Myers-Briggs
> > > > > > > have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman
> > > > > > > Krznaric
> > > > > > > adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
> > > > > > > around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
> > > > > > > category.”"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists
> > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
> > > > > > > collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of the
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > important predictors of individual and group patterns of thought,
> > > > > > > feeling,
> > > > > > > and action, so it’s an unfortunate oversight. As another example, the
> > > > > > > judging-perceiving scale captures whether I’m an organizer and a
> > > > > > > planner,
> > > > > > > but overlooks the industriousness and achievement drive that tend to
> > > > > > > accompany these characteristics—together, they form a personality
> > > > > > > trait
> > > > > > > called conscientiousness. As personality psychologists Robert McCrae
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Paul Costa sum it up, “the MBTI does not give comprehensive
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > the four domains it does sample.”"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > </cite>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do I need to continue. The experts on human psyche tell us the MBTI is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > a meaningful or accurate assessment of anyone's personality
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More over what you have done in attempting to assign me a personality
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > is project your own personality with all it flaws on the world and
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > around you. That is just your own bias and emotions, not anyone else's
> > > > > > > personality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you have could be considered a CLASSICAL CASE of PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > > > > > PROJECTION.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was agreeing with what you said, but qualified it due to the way
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > treat others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I only treat you Carole that way. why? Because you, Carole are
> > > > > > > > > willful
> > > > > > > > > ignorant to the point you are STUPID.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Its all relative bob - you are more stupid than alties in ways that
> > > > > > > > matter within mha.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only Artie here is you Carole. And you are as stupid as they come.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But your case is exceptional circumstances due to the fact that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > continually ridicule anything that is alternative, and dictate
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > people should believe.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carole that is just your unqualified opinion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You make yourself fair game by the way you treat others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Others Carole? Who do you believe you are fooling?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You make yourself stupid by the way you suck up to allopaths no matter
> > > > > > > > how inane their comments, and ridicule alternative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are the suck up, Carole. Are you upset Tim Bolen doesn't like you
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > when you suck up to him?
> > > > > > > The Frenchman that claims he had his gold mine was stolen? You sucked
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > him and he still ignored you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I do not dictate what people should believe, I simply point out
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > beliefs are shown to be other than true, or their beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent,
> > > > > > > > > > > or not logical, or unsupported by data and experiments.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You push your opinions onto others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I state facts. Not opinions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob, you don't even understand the meaning of the words "fact" or
> > > > > > > > "opinion".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do and it is you that do not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fact: 1/3 to one half of people taking the MBTI a second time will get
> > > > > > > different results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The opinion of what that fact means is the large percentage of
> > > > > > > people,which
> > > > > > > get different results on second and third and all subsequent testing
> > > > > > > invalidates the test in total. That is opinion held by experts in the
> > > > > > > field. Expert's opinions which the US Courts used to detriment that
> > > > > > > jobs,
> > > > > > > promotions and scholarships and school admissions can not be determined
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > the result of any personality typing test, because said test are not
> > > > > > > valid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your views are mistaken as you only take into account current
> > > > > > > > > > doctored
> > > > > > > > > > mainstream science, which has been deliberately dumbed down for the
> > > > > > > > > > masses.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And you take into account I found BULLSHIT, NONSENSE and
> > > > > > > > > SUPERSTITION.
> > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > lack any critical thinking skills what so every. Even worse you
> > > > > > > > > constantly
> > > > > > > > > repeat lies without any fact checking on your part.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I said before bob, you don't understand the meaning of the word
> > > > > > > > "fact" or "propaganda" or "logic". You are a non-rational person bob.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fact the speculation by Jung about fixed personalities at birth was
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > that, mere speculation. The body of evidence shows that personality is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > a fixed quality at any time during a person's life. There was no
> > > > > > > science
> > > > > > > behind the MBTI. And there is a large body of evidence which indicates
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > MBTI isn't valid at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Most what what is alternative is just that, unsupported claims, and
> > > > > > > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > > > are outright lies, or scam to harm people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mainstream is mostly lies bob.
> > > > > > > > > > Pharmaceutical science is crap yet it is pushed forward as the only
> > > > > > > > > > game in town. This just isn't true.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You have it backwards, or are you offering to be a test subject for a
> > > > > > > > > turmeric IV drip?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Recently a California woman was killed by a naturopath with turmeric.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob, many people are killed daily by allopathic practitioners.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually not anywhere near the rate of naturopaths.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If one person dies at the hand of a naturopath, it is like a several
> > > > > > > million people that same day being kill by evidence based medicine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry you just do not grasp the significance of the numbers and ratios.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks heavens for Trump.
> > > > > > > > > > I can't wait until he drains the pharmaceutical swamp.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You must not be ? my attention, he is appointing people,from big
> > > > > > > > > banking
> > > > > > > > > and big industry and big pharma left and right.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmmm ... if you are going to appoint experts in their field, you have
> > > > > > > > to draw from people who have worked high up in that field.
> > > > > > > > That's one point.
> > > > > > > > I don't know what Trump is doing with his defence strategy. Apparently
> > > > > > > > Trump has made some good moves with domestic things, according to Alex
> > > > > > > > Jones. Maybe there's method in his madness, or maybe he's been
> > > > > > > > influenced by warmongers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex Jones? This Alex Jones?
> > > > > > > http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/alex-jones-performance-act-lawyer-adm
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > s-
> > > > > > > fak
> > > > > > > e-court/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Most rational people know that Alex Jones is a carnival barker who
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > never once be taken seriously. With even just the tiniest amount of
> > > > > > > digging, it's not that difficult to figure out that his entire schtick
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > ginning up conspiracy theories for the express purpose of selling Alex
> > > > > > > Jones brand boner tonics to his batshit audience of impotent nimrods
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > see scary feminists, "gun-grabbing" liberals, and black helicopters
> > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > around every corner. That these morons haven't sniffed out the colossal
> > > > > > > hypocrisy of Jones hopping right into bed with Donald Trump - who's
> > > > > > > essentially letting the police and military (a.k.a. the government) do
> > > > > > > whatever the hell they want, whenever they want - is only further proof
> > > > > > > that they're dangerous idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have anything
> > > > > > > sharper than a spork let alone a goddamn gun.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, today, a considerable shoe was dropped when Alex Jones' lawyer
> > > > > > > admitted that Jones entire persona is a "character." NBC News reports:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Alex Jones who told his legions of "Infowars" listeners that bogus
> > > > > > > stories about the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks and
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > Hillary Clinton operating a pedophile ring out of a Washington D.C.
> > > > > > > pizza
> > > > > > > joint is really "a performance artist."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's according to Jones' own lawyer — not the mainstream media that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > right-wing radio jock derides as "fake news."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "He's playing a character" and is nothing like his online persona,
> > > > > > > attorney
> > > > > > > Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial
> > > > > > > hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock's custody battle with
> > > > > > > ex-wife
> > > > > > > Kelly Jones."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So there you have it. Alex Jones admits he lies and panders to the
> > > > > > > audience, make up stuff on his broadcasts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you somehow believe that windbag is honestly reporting anything?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carole, you thought process is more damaged than anyone could imagine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It also invalidates itself by stating if you do not like the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > label
> > > > > > > > > > > > > applied
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to yourself by the test, you simply pick the label which you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does it say that if you don't like one label to put down the whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > myer briggs type testing system is worthless?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No stats shows it is worthless as designed and used in the past,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > real future except as entertainment for people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can understand why you take this view since you don't like being
> > > > > > > > > > called a pharmaceutical pawn and a slave to doctored science.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry Carole I was the person challenging and pointing out how the
> > > > > > > > > study
> > > > > > > > > you cited was doctored. No critical thinking skills on your part.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob, you no rational thinking skills -- just deference to mainstream
> > > > > > > > "expert" doctrine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So back to the study you cited why was my criticisms wrong?
> > > > > > > These were so called mainstream scientist using main stream methods. I
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > pointed out their process had errors and while,the finding were
> > > > > > > interesting, they lacked any sort validity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretty simple they admit the instrument has no value. It is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > worthless
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes in parlor games for amusement only
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are a pawn bob, admit it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No Carole, the pawn is you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Not me bob.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not the one who hangs on the words of "experts" and "reliable
> > > > > > > > > > sources".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You cited the poorly done study Carole, not me. Your experts were the
> > > > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > > > questioned,
> > > > > > > > > not mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Whatever bob.
> > > > > > > > The study was for your interests. I have my own way of working things
> > > > > > > > out which don't depend on "studies", as most of them are doctored in
> > > > > > > > order to promote pharmaceutical drugs and ridicule alternative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't have a way. You don't have knowledge. And you certainly do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > understand what you have read, Carole. This entire exchange shows you
> > > > > > > really don't have a grasp on the meaning of what you have read, and can
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > correctly apply what you have read to the world around you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your personality type is STUPid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The studies have all been done that various nutrients have
> > > > > > > > > > therapeutic
> > > > > > > > > > effects. When is the last time your mainstream quack recommended a
> > > > > > > > > > nutrient for any condition?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Every day.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think so bob.
> > > > > > > > If mainstream recommended nutrients over pharmaceutical drugs, they
> > > > > > > > would be de-registered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No they are not., this is more nonsense you just made up? Many doctors
> > > > > > > tout
> > > > > > > and suggest nutritional supplements. My own GP suggested I take a fish
> > > > > > > oil
> > > > > > > capsule a day until he saw my diet. Then he dropped the suggestion. Do
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > know why? My HDL/LDL ratio is nearly perfect, and my total cholesterol
> > > > > > > level is less than 100.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And now I get to spend more time outside in the sun since I retired, I
> > > > > > > don't even need to take vitamin D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don’t you get tired of refuting Carole's bull shit over and over
> > > > > > again?
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > is the sameday after day, a twisted view of America, Americans and the
> > > > > > pharmaceutical industry, with all her false claims to outright lies and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > the name calling?
> > > > >
> > > > > I do.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you notice I often just ignore her, because the continue refutations
> > > > > of
> > > > > her claims over and over again gets tiresome. Like swatting at a gnat.
> > > > >
> > > > > However there is more and more data constantly coming out about how badly
> > > > > the MBTI is. I read a paper which went back to the initial publication
> > > > > and
> > > > > work upon which the MBTI was based upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even the claim that certain personality types are better suited to
> > > > > certain
> > > > > professions is unfounded and the data not only shows the claim is wrong
> > > > > and
> > > > > it is simply a declaration by fiat which was taken as true without any
> > > > > research or evidence or data.
> > > > >
> > > > > This constant litany is repeated nonsense only shows Carole is persistent
> > > > > and never finds anything new.
> > > > >
> > > > > She isn't an Allie, she is simply an attention whore.
> > > > >
> > > > > So in the last month I have taught classes, worked on the March of dimes
> > > > > walk which took place this morning. Written three articles for Ham Radio.
> > > > > Stated a fourth article, I am teaching Tuesday and next Saturday. Been
> > > > > riding my bike, doing yard work and getting ready for a summer on the
> > > > > coast
> > > > > where it will be cool.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I started learning calligraphy just because it looks like fun. I know
> > > > > being left handed is going to make it difficult to learn but then I like
> > > > > a
> > > > > challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > What are your plans for the rest of spring and summer?
> > > >
> > > > One of the things I like to do is find out how things work. this causes me
> > > > to
> > > > take things apart when they break and I usually end up fixing it if I can.
> > > > Little things like small appliances and some of this high tech stuff.
> > > > Right
> > > > now I have three broken computers sitting here and on two, the repairs are
> > > > very simple. The third one the repair is simple, replacement of the power
> > > > button, but requires soldering and I am not good at that at all. Could be
> > > > the
> > > > cheap iron??? Maybe I should just practice?
> > >
> > > Practice. Heat the wire or the lug with the iron and apply the solder to
> > > lug not iron. It that doesn't work you need a hotter iron, because you are
> > > heating a lot of metal.
> >
> > Heat and apply the solder to the item I am attaching to the circuit board
> > rather then the board itself????
>
> Exact. The foil on circuit boards is fairly fragile.

Yes, I have already found that out and the reason I hesitate with the power
switch.
>
>
> Heat and tin (apply a bit of solder to what you are applying to the board).
> Then and only then place the part on the board or thru the hole in the
> board, and heat until the solder starts to floe tap a bit more solder and
> let cool without moving the part. It should only take a few seconds (10).

I will have to do a bit of computer video learning. We can actually find
information on how to repair almost everything we own with schematics and
all. I followed one of those video’s, step by step when I changed the
internal hard drive in a laptop. No soldering that time.
>
>
> > That makes better sense if that is what you
> > mean. The Iron I have used in the past is a real cheap one and I will watch
> > a
> > few of those videos on the internet to learn how to do this and then,
> > practice, practice, practice with that before I attempt to solder that power
> > switch (or what ever it is called. I was never any good at applying the
> > correct names of electronic parts) to the circuit board. If I had more use
> > for it I would buy a good Iron.
>
> You can have fun, building stuff is fun.

I know, I used to do it all the time but now too old for the big stuff. Bird
houses is about my speed now using one of those smaller table saws with the
blade on a moving arm. Forget what they are called but I think they are used
for cutting picture frames etc.
Bob Officer
2017-04-29 03:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>
>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>
>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
>>>>>>> (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> Practice. Heat the wire or the lug with the iron and apply the solder to
>>>> lug not iron. It that doesn't work you need a hotter iron, because you are
>>>> heating a lot of metal.
>>>
>>> Heat and apply the solder to the item I am attaching to the circuit board
>>> rather then the board itself????
>>
>> Exact. The foil on circuit boards is fairly fragile.
>
> Yes, I have already found that out and the reason I hesitate with the power
> switch.

So get some practice and then just do it.


>> Heat and tin (apply a bit of solder to what you are applying to the board).
>> Then and only then place the part on the board or thru the hole in the
>> board, and heat until the solder starts to floe tap a bit more solder and
>> let cool without moving the part. It should only take a few seconds (10).
>
> I will have to do a bit of computer video learning. We can actually find
> information on how to repair almost everything we own with schematics and
> all. I followed one of those video’s, step by step when I changed the
> internal hard drive in a laptop. No soldering that time.

Look around and you'll find how to do videos for just about everything.


>>
>>> That makes better sense if that is what you
>>> mean. The Iron I have used in the past is a real cheap one and I will watch
>>> a
>>> few of those videos on the internet to learn how to do this and then,
>>> practice, practice, practice with that before I attempt to solder that power
>>> switch (or what ever it is called. I was never any good at applying the
>>> correct names of electronic parts) to the circuit board. If I had more use
>>> for it I would buy a good Iron.
>>
>> You can have fun, building stuff is fun.
>
> I know, I used to do it all the time but now too old for the big stuff. Bird
> houses is about my speed now using one of those smaller table saws with the
> blade on a moving arm. Forget what they are called but I think they are used
> for cutting picture frames etc.
>

Two types of saw like that, Radial Arm, where the blade gets pulled out and
Cut-off where the blades drops down.

I have to of the cutoff variety, one for wood and one for metal.





--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
Lu
2017-04-29 16:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 28, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
(in article <***@news.alt.net>):

> Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> >
> > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 26, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > >
> > > > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lu <***@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2017, Bob Officer wrote
> > > > > > > > (in article <***@news.alt.net>):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Practice. Heat the wire or the lug with the iron and apply the solder to
> > > > > lug not iron. It that doesn't work you need a hotter iron, because you
> > > > > are
> > > > > heating a lot of metal.
> > > >
> > > > Heat and apply the solder to the item I am attaching to the circuit board
> > > > rather then the board itself????
> > >
> > > Exact. The foil on circuit boards is fairly fragile.
> >
> > Yes, I have already found that out and the reason I hesitate with the power
> > switch.
>
> So get some practice and then just do it.

My intention.
>
>
> > > Heat and tin (apply a bit of solder to what you are applying to the board).
> > > Then and only then place the part on the board or thru the hole in the
> > > board, and heat until the solder starts to floe tap a bit more solder and
> > > let cool without moving the part. It should only take a few seconds (10).
> >
> > I will have to do a bit of computer video learning. We can actually find
> > information on how to repair almost everything we own with schematics and
> > all. I followed one of those video’s, step by step when I changed the
> > internal hard drive in a laptop. No soldering that time.
>
> Look around and you'll find how to do videos for just about everything.

exactly and usually several different people demonstrating each repair.
Really good for us amateurs.
>
>
> > >
> > > > That makes better sense if that is what you
> > > > mean. The Iron I have used in the past is a real cheap one and I will
> > > > watch
> > > > a
> > > > few of those videos on the internet to learn how to do this and then,
> > > > practice, practice, practice with that before I attempt to solder that
> > > > power
> > > > switch (or what ever it is called. I was never any good at applying the
> > > > correct names of electronic parts) to the circuit board. If I had more use
> > > > for it I would buy a good Iron.
> > >
> > > You can have fun, building stuff is fun.
> >
> > I know, I used to do it all the time but now too old for the big stuff. Bird
> > houses is about my speed now using one of those smaller table saws with the
> > blade on a moving arm. Forget what they are called but I think they are used
> > for cutting picture frames etc.
>
> Two types of saw like that, Radial Arm, where the blade gets pulled out and
> Cut-off where the blades drops down.
>
> I have to of the cutoff variety, one for wood and one for metal.

Yes, it is a small Radial Arm saws. As I said, I often do not remember the
name of items I am talking about. Anyway, I haven’t looked at it that saw
in awhile but as I said it is used for things like making picture frames and
does straight and different angle cuts. Miters come to mind but don’t
remember the names of the other cuts. It is small so I will get someone to
bring it upstairs to my deck and I will make some bird houses out of wood
scraps. NO, no plans, just ideas. :D
Duncan
2017-04-30 18:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:06:22 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Duncan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
>>>>>> <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Globalist scientific rationalisations deleted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/researchers-debunk-placebo-effect-saying-its-only-a-myth.html
>>>>>>>> Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with people like you bob, is that you believe something if
>>>>>>>> its supported by the establishment, and disbelieve it if it isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This makes you an establishment pawn iow an ESTJ -- I dislike ESTJs
>>>>>>>> because there are so bloody many of them and they tend to take over
>>>>>>>> and dictate what is and what isn't true.
>>>>>>>> Any people who have legitimate queries or problems get pushed aside
>>>>>>>> and told what is true and what isn't based on the fact it is
>>>>>>>> establishment principle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob, just dictating establishment principles or citing establishment
>>>>>>>> sources doesn't make something true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every time you project your own psychological faults on other people, you
>>>>>>> loose. Part of the literature on the Myers Briggs page state you can not
>>>>>>> and should not take the test or project what other people's personalities
>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This holds true most of the time bob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me where on the Myers-Briggs web pages or in its manuals, procedures
>>>>> or policies, states that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no comprehension skills bob.
>>>
>>> I do understand you. It is you that claims to read between the lines.
>>> Myers-Briggs on their web page admits e test is bullshit.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
>No it is not rubbish. It is the truth.
>
>. Do you need it cited once more? It is plain language, Carole. If one is
>not happy with the results of the test, one is free to pick what every they
>want.

That simply means that if a person is unhappy with the results
[because they know what resonates with their own insights into
themselves] they are free to pick another type.

But bob, you haven't picked another type, and your type is pretty
common and easy enough to recognise. You are the archetype brown-noser
to those in authority and never question the system.

>
>That means the test and categorization is of no value. It is totally
>bullshit.
>
>http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/
>
>"When you receive your MBTI profile, you might not agree with it. Only you
>can decide which personality type fits you best, and there are
>circumstances that explain why you may decide to choose a different type
>than your MBTI results. "

But bob, you haven't picked any other type as being more you than ESTJ
and since people here know you well enough, it is easy to see how you
fit the ESTJ model. If you think you are another type then tell us and
explain why.

>
>Here is a real experts opinion
>
>https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
>
><Cite>
>"Now, if you’re an MBTI fan, you might say it’s typical of an INTJ to turn
>to science. Touche. But regardless of your type, it’s hard to argue with
>the idea that if we’re going to divide people into categories, those
>categories ought to be meaningful. In social science, we use four
>standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and
>comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not
>really."
>
>"A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources.
>If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two
>different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing,
>reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores
>when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores
>foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as
>many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type
>when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality
>Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs
>have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric
>adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's
>around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality
>category.”"
>
>"A comprehensive test assesses the major categories that exist. One of the
>key elements missing from the MBTI is what personality psychologists call
>emotional stability versus reactivity—the tendency to stay calm and
>collected under stress or pressure. This turns out to be one of th