[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I was quoting a professional in that field. It was he who effectively rubbished it, I was merely passing on what he said.

What's odd is accepting a professional psychological account of someone's actions based on watching the telly and reading a biog. It isn't professional. What those women gave were opinions, nothing more. And opinions, as we know, are like arseholes in that everyone's got one, and theirs were no more valid than anyone's who doesn't like Jim.

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

"We" can't corroborate your story? What have you set up a panel? LMAO... If everyone who posts here - including you - is going to have to have everything they say corroborated it's going to get pretty tedious.

If a doctor told you were ill based on a summing up of what you've done in your past and a few hours of video tape I'd say you were going to a quack.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

"We" can't corroborate your story? What have you set up a panel? LMAO... If everyone who posts here - including you - is going to have to have everything they say corroborated it's going to get pretty tedious.

If a doctor told you were ill based on a summing up of what you've done in your past and a few hours of video tape I'd say you were going to a quack.

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then watchagondo?

When did Hulk Hogan join the forum?

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered'

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered'

True.

One things for sure - for the past 3 weeks - there is alot more knee-jerk, blinkered prejudice coming towards Jim than there is coming from Jim.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered'

We're discussing what the psychologists on the show think, not me.
And I don't hate jim, I'm just aware how he operates.

[chuff me dizzy]

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

IF experts had said he was an angel would you have believed it ?

I don't believe ANYTHING these "experts" have to say Chuff, it is a load of cobblers... Did you not know that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get an "ology" at uni, there are no rights or wrongs, it is the sort of thing someone studies at uni where they only have to turn up to two lectures a week & they are guaranteed a degree

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We're discussing what the psychologists on the show think, not me.
And I don't hate jim, I'm just aware how he operates.

I didn't mention what you think dear & I couldn't care less anyway... But I would hate to think how you would comment on someone you DID hate!

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

No-one is perfect, and none of us are genuine, because we are made up of many complex layers formed over time. There's a book called "The Games People Play" which outlines the ways that people will adopt particular roles as a result of external/internal stimuli or circumstances. e.g. Linda adopting her parental role in the house. In the eyes off a psychologist, and in reality, we all play games, we all manipulate, we all conceal. Jim in those respects is no different from anyone else.

When a psychologist refers to someone as being manipulative, it means nothing unless he/she explains in what way they are being manipulative, because everyone manipulates other people in order to achieve their goals.

We all conceal our weaknesses because exposing them would make us vulnerable, and we all conceal our faults because as humans, we are dependent on others, therefore must be accepted by the social group.

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

To an extent, no-one is perfect, and none of us are genuine, because we are made up of many complex layers formed over time. There's a book called "Games People Play" about transactional analysis. It explores social interactions, and outlines the ways in which people will adopt particular roles as a result of external/internal stimuli or circumstances. e.g. Linda adopting her parental role in the house. In the eyes of a psychologist, and in reality, we all play these "games", we all manipulate, we all conceal. Jim in those respects is no different from anyone else.

When a psychologist refers to someone as being manipulative, it means nothing unless he/she explains in what way the person is being manipulative, because in psychobabble, most people manipulate others in order to achieve their goals, from children who want a cuddle to adults who want the last of the wine. A lot of the time, this is not even a conscious thing.

We all conceal our weaknesses because exposing them would make us vulnerable, and we all conceal our faults because as humans we are dependent on others, and therefore must be accepted by the social group.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

If the psych said Jim was genuine and honest I'd have said they were full of sh*t.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

I think youve read Kizzy wrong ,I doubt very much she was making out she spoke for the entire forum ,shes not that arrogant

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

Of course not, don't resort to the ol goto response of condescension please livia.
My point was you can't discredit psychology is an inexact science due to your alleged conversation with one psychologist.
Of course I'm not saying you're lying, it does conveniently fit your theory, but that probably coincidence.
Don't suppose you know how or what my responses will be... you don't.
We don't agree on this it's not unheard of, but not the end of the world.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Of course not, don't resort to the ol goto response of condescension please livia.
My point was you can't discredit psychology is an inexact science due to your alleged conversation with one psychologist.
Of course I'm not saying you're lying, it does conveniently fit your theory, but that probably coincidence.
Don't suppose you know how or what my responses will be... you don't.
We don't agree on this it's not unheard of, but not the end of the world.

Whatever, can't be arsed to read it.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!