Is Theresa May really going to spend the next six weeks repeating the terms 'strong

[Peter]

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

[PSRB]

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

In fairness, she doesn't need to say much else

[barrybueno]

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

**** off peter ;-)

[redgunamo]

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.
.
It's called "staying on message", isn't it. I don't recall which clowns coined the term :-)

[SWv2]

and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??

This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.

Aren't all elections tedious?

Don't know why they don't just call an election and then vote about 2 days later. Does anybody really change their vote during the life of a campaign?

[Rich]

Aren't all elections tedious?

Don't know why they don't just call an election and then vote about 2 days later. Does anybody really change their vote during the life of a campaign?

Believe that it's more about persuading people that don't typically vote to cast a vote in the campaigner's favour.

[SWv2]

Believe that it's more about persuading people that don't typically vote to cast a vote in the campaigner's favour.

For once you make a decent and valid point Dick, however if these people are so gullible as to believe the claims or promises of a politician then surely there is an argument they should not be allowed to vote.

[Ash]

Believe that it's more about persuading people that don't typically vote to cast a vote in the campaigner's favour.

More than that. It is about the notion (not currently fashionable, I admit) that people should and can make up their own minds on the basis of discussion and debate, and that political decisions that affect people's lives can be made on this basis.

Party loyalty is always a big factor, but so are floating voters who consider each campaign on its own merits. Judging May in May, as it were.

[Ash]

For once you make a decent and valid point Dick, however if these people are so gullible as to believe the claims or promises of a politician then surely there is an argument they should not be allowed to vote.

The problem, I believe, with this level of cynicism is that it taps into the prevalent notion that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote - as we saw in the fury following the EU referendum. The alternative is to be ruled forever by 'experts' and technocrats who claim to know what is best for other people.

A analogy could be made, if you will forgive me, to the view of Monty (and others) that football fans are too stupid to be allowed into the ground where their lack of understanding of the game, and possibly vocal pronouncements on that basis, can only damage the outcome of the match.

British poltitics once consisted of solely of the whims of a King. Slowly over the centuries power was wrested down the ladder, and now everyone has a vote. I believe this is not something that should be given away.

Democracy In!

[Monty92]

The problem, I believe, with this level of cynicism is that it taps into the prevalent notion that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote - as we saw in the fury following the EU referendum. The alternative is to be ruled forever by 'experts' and technocrats who claim to know what is best for other people.

A analogy could be made, if you will forgive me, to the view of Monty (and others) that football fans are too stupid to be allowed into the ground where their lack of understanding of the game, and possibly vocal pronouncements on that basis, can only damage the outcome of the match.

British poltitics once consisted of solely of the whims of a King. Slowly over the centuries power was wrested down the ladder, and now everyone has a vote. I believe this is not something that should be given away.

Democracy In!

Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.

Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.

[redgunamo]

Judging May in May, as it were.

Excellent.

[Monty92]

Excellent.

Yes, I meant to say, good work there Ash.

[SWv2]

Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.

Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.

How do you view yourself in this respect?

[Monty92]

How do you view yourself in this respect?

I think I can occasionally have some decent insights, but that's more due to the way my brain works rather than any specialist knowledge. When it comes to the latter, I think I'm pretty mediocre, albeit above the mean, I would hope.

[Ash]

Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.

Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.

People are not God. They cannot see all ends.

To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.

On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.

[Monty92]

People are not God. They cannot see all ends.

To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.

On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.

I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.

But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.

I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?

[redgunamo]

I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.

But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.

I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?

That's television doe, innit. The Idiot Box, Michael Mann calls it, and he would know better than most.

[Ash]

I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.

But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.

I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?

I think the essential thing I am disagreeing with is your misanthropy. Look, there's nothing wrong with you aspiring to a higher level of political engagement, where engagement is defined in terms of an intelligent, balanced, nuanced, informed* analysis. I would like that too but I don't tip back the other way and decry everyone as stupid because the level of engagement is not as high as it might be.

The thing is, I know plenty of people who consider themselves smart and informed, but who I often disagree with when it comes to political outlook, largely because their primary source of information* is The Guardian. :shrug:

* A problem for me is a lack of balance and breadth in the range of views discussed in the most highly-consumed media sources.

[redgunamo]

People are not God. They cannot see all ends.

To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.

On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.

The less say, the better, I think. In a civilised country, people ought to have better things to think about than who runs the country.

[redgunamo]

I think the essential thing I am disagreeing with is your misanthropy. Look, there's nothing wrong with you aspiring to a higher level of political engagement, where engagement is defined in terms of an intelligent, balanced, nuanced, informed* analysis. I would like that too but I don't tip back the other way and decry everyone as stupid because the level of engagement is not as high as it might be.

The thing is, I know plenty of people who consider themselves smart and informed, but who I often disagree with when it comes to political outlook, largely because their primary source of information* is The Guardian. :shrug:

* A problem for me is a lack of balance and breadth in the range of views discussed in the most highly-consumed media sources.

Although, bemoaning the absence of debate is a good way to avoid showing youself up by actually engaging in one.

[Ash]

The less say, the better, I think. In a civilised country, people ought to have better things to think about than who runs the country.

Like who runs their football team?

[redgunamo]

Like who runs their football team?

Yes, precisely. That's of far more real import.

[Monty92]

I think the essential thing I am disagreeing with is your misanthropy. Look, there's nothing wrong with you aspiring to a higher level of political engagement, where engagement is defined in terms of an intelligent, balanced, nuanced, informed* analysis. I would like that too but I don't tip back the other way and decry everyone as stupid because the level of engagement is not as high as it might be.

The thing is, I know plenty of people who consider themselves smart and informed, but who I often disagree with when it comes to political outlook, largely because their primary source of information* is The Guardian. :shrug:

* A problem for me is a lack of balance and breadth in the range of views discussed in the most highly-consumed media sources.

You can't disagree with misanthropy. It may simply be that my sensibilities are offended by stupidity more than yours.

I don't believe that you genuinely feel that most people are not stupid. We both engage in the real world every day and we will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet. Sometimes we will underestimate or overestimate, but generally our instincts will not be far off the mark.

It is blindingly obvious that most people do not place importance on the critical thinking required to be a truly intelligent person (beyond IQ and General Intelligence) and instead focus their attentions on other things, some of which are of great value both to themselves and others and some that are not.

[Monty92]

Although, bemoaning the absence of debate is a good way to avoid showing youself up by actually engaging in one.

Is this about me not elucidating on why Wenger's still the man for the job? :rolleyes:

[World's End Stella]

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.


If that is your genuine belief then you should vote. Stupid.

[Monty92]

If that is your genuine belief then you should vote. Stupid.

I know I should. But I'm just one person and my vote alone would be inconsequential, so my guilt is limited.

[SWv2]

If that is your genuine belief then you should vote. Stupid.

Wes old boy.

I have just received an out of office message telling me that you "will be on holiday until January 5th, 2015 however should be online occassionally over the Christmas holidays."

Sort it out mate.

:rolleyes:

[World's End Stella]

I know I should. But I'm just one person and my vote alone would be inconsequential, so my guilt is limited.

That view is almost as limited as your justifications for Wenger remaining as Arsenal manager next year. It takes only the smallest amount of analysis to rip that argument apart.

[World's End Stella]

Wes old boy.

I have just received an out of office message telling me that you "will be on holiday until January 5th, 2015 however should be online occassionally over the Christmas holidays."

Sort it out mate.

:rolleyes:

It gets worse. My internal email reply says that I am out of office from Feb 26 to Feb 28 instead of April. I have asked my secretary to sort it out but have limited expectations. :-)

[redgunamo]

Is this about me not elucidating on why Wenger's still the man for the job? :rolleyes:

You've tirelessly made your case on that, I thought, and your view won the day?

[Peter]

You can't disagree with misanthropy. It may simply be that my sensibilities are offended by stupidity more than yours.

I don't believe that you genuinely feel that most people are not stupid. We both engage in the real world every day and we will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet. Sometimes we will underestimate or overestimate, but generally our instincts will not be far off the mark.

It is blindingly obvious that most people do not place importance on the critical thinking required to be a truly intelligent person (beyond IQ and General Intelligence) and instead focus their attentions on other things, some of which are of great value both to themselves and others and some that are not.

I will put it this way. As a general rule, the cleverest people I know tend to be the biggest ****s, the least fun to be around and the least likely to get their round in.

When it comes to voting the vast majority of people vote in their own self interest and even the stupid ones are generally able to work out what that is. Intelligence is not needed when it comes to voting. Or getting your round in.

[Monty92]

That view is almost as limited as your justifications for Wenger remaining as Arsenal manager next year. It takes only the smallest amount of analysis to rip that argument apart.

What, you're going to try to prove that my vote alone is not inconsequential?

[redgunamo]

I know I should. But I'm just one person and my vote alone would be inconsequential, so my guilt is limited.

Democracy's about far more than merely voting though. It's about responsibility.

[Ash]

my secretary

The 1970s called. They want their Professional Assistant back.

[redgunamo]

I will put it this way. As a general rule, the cleverest people I know tend to be the biggest ****s, the least fun to be around and the least likely to get their round in.

When it comes to voting the vast majority of people vote in their own self interest and even the stupid ones are generally able to work out what that is. Intelligence is not needed when it comes to voting. Or getting your round in.

There's just different *kinds* of intelligence (and stupidity), not just the one.

[Ash]

You can't disagree with misanthropy. It may simply be that my sensibilities are offended by stupidity more than yours.

I don't believe that you genuinely feel that most people are not stupid. We both engage in the real world every day and we will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet. Sometimes we will underestimate or overestimate, but generally our instincts will not be far off the mark.

It is blindingly obvious that most people do not place importance on the critical thinking required to be a truly intelligent person (beyond IQ and General Intelligence) and instead focus their attentions on other things, some of which are of great value both to themselves and others and some that are not.

We're all stupid. Just stupid in different ways. Doesn't seem to be much point in getting all out of shape about it. When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent or interesting or attractive. We just have very different priorities, it seems.

[Ash]

I will put it this way. As a general rule, the cleverest people I know tend to be the biggest ****s, the least fun to be around and the least likely to get their round in.


The Americans have a word for this, which is 'smart'. Smart meets not getting your round in because you are cleverer than everyone else and have uniquely worked out that if you don't ever get a round in you get you keep all your money and can go on to enjoy wealth and status. This makes you smart. :-|

See also many other ruthless examples of fiscal cùntery whereby screwing people over is something to aspire to because it shows how smart you are.

[Monty92]

We're all stupid. Just stupid in different ways. Doesn't seem to be much point in getting all out of shape about it. When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent or interesting or attractive. We just have very different priorities, it seems.

It sounds like our priorities are pretty much the same to me.

"We will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet."

"When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent [...]"

[redgunamo]

We're all stupid. Just stupid in different ways. Doesn't seem to be much point in getting all out of shape about it. When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent or interesting or attractive. We just have very different priorities, it seems.

I think M is on the make though, in a way you are not, so I guess he's more sensitive to these things, less willing to be so generous?

[Monty92]

The Americans have a word for this, which is 'smart'. Smart meets not getting your round in because you are cleverer than everyone else and have uniquely worked out that if you don't ever get a round in you get you keep all your money and can go on to enjoy wealth and status. This makes you smart. :-|

See also many other ruthless examples of fiscal cùntery whereby screwing people over is something to aspire to because it shows how smart you are.

I'm not sure that's any less ethical than you "screwing over" the other blokes and blokesses who were interviewed along with you for your current job by using your superior skills, experience, etc.

[Peter]

There's just different *kinds* of intelligence (and stupidity), not just the one.

Ok, I will clarify. People who are recognised as being formally intelligent (ie with PhDs and such) and who believe this is an important thing in people tend to be boring ****s who I would generally try and avoid drinking with (at least partly because they never get their round in).

For instance, someone might be a bit ignorant but a good laugh. These guys tend to get the beers in.

[Ash]

It sounds like our priorities are pretty much the same to me.

"We will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet."

"When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent [...]"

You have missed my point and twisted my words, my friend. :nono:

There are various ways of being intelligent, and various ways of being stupid. I try to look for the positives in people. (Even the capitalists and their lickspittle running dogs!) If you do the same, you don't talk about it much on here. I only see you banging the drum about about how stupid people are.

[Peter]

I'm not sure that's any less ethical than you "screwing over" the other blokes and blokesses who were interviewed along with you for your current job by using your superior skills, experience, etc.

Apart from the fact that a job application process is necessarily competitive whereas a round system is designed to be socially inclusive and cooperative.

Not getting your round in makes you a selfish ****.

[Peter]

You have missed my point and twisted my words, my friend. :nono:

There are various ways of being intelligent, and various ways of being stupid. I try to look for the positives in people. (Even the capitalists and their lickspittle running dogs!) If you do the same, you don't talk about it much on here. I only see you banging the drum about about how stupid people are.

Interesting that you look for the positives in people. I think, to some extent, we all do. If I am forced to have a conversation with someone I don't know then the natural reaction is to find common ground and talk about something where you can both make a contribution to the conversation. To do the opposite and start talking about something that upsets or completely sidelines the other person would be an odd way to behave.

I think we all try and interact with what we see as he positives in other people, it is just that some of us don't like to admit it.

For one thing, it sounds a bit gay :D

[Monty92]

You have missed my point and twisted my words, my friend. :nono:

There are various ways of being intelligent, and various ways of being stupid. I try to look for the positives in people. (Even the capitalists and their lickspittle running dogs!) If you do the same, you don't talk about it much on here. I only see you banging the drum about about how stupid people are.

I agree that there's an imbalance, but you can't say I am somehow reluctant or unwilling to talk about people whom I respect intellectually. Whenever I have cause to do so, I will promote or talk about something or someone I admire. If, for example, by mentioning the wonderful Sam Harris in a recent post, I learned that a few Awimbers had googled him and discovered his work, I would be absolutely delighted.

[redgunamo]

The Americans have a word for this, which is 'smart'. Smart meets not getting your round in because you are cleverer than everyone else and have uniquely worked out that if you don't ever get a round in you get you keep all your money and can go on to enjoy wealth and status. This makes you smart. :-|

See also many other ruthless examples of fiscal cùntery whereby screwing people over is something to aspire to because it shows how smart you are.

Fine margins though. When does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

[Ash]

I'm not sure that's any less ethical than you "screwing over" the other blokes and blokesses who were interviewed along with you for your current job by using your superior skills, experience, etc.

Eh? Getting a job is the same as not finding your way to the bar? You need to recalibrate your ethics-detection instruments, mate.

Anyway. As a matter of fact I wasn't interviewed, I was hired directly by the CEO who I had worked for at another company. :hehe:

[Monty92]

Eh? Getting a job is the same as not finding your way to the bar? You need to recalibrate your ethics-detection instruments, mate.

Anyway. As a matter of fact I wasn't interviewed, I was hired directly by the CEO who I had worked for at another company. :hehe:

I was comparing it to you belittling the fact that people using fiscal c*ntery are considered 'smart'. I don't recall mentioning anything about getting a round in.

Or as Red says, when does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

[Ash]

Fine margins though. When does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

Here's an example: Ten years ago I was screwed over on a property deal. The value of that loss to me is now nearly a quarter of a million pounds.

They clearly did well for themselves there.

[Ash]

I was comparing it to you belittling the fact that people using fiscal c*ntery are considered 'smart'. I don't recall mentioning anything about getting a round in.

Or as Red says, when does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

I think I had been relying to Peter.

[redgunamo]

..how stupid people are.

And, by implication, how clever we ourselves are. There's nothing wrong with it really, so long as one doesn't get caught believing one's own intelligence necessarily makes others stupid.

[Ash]

Interesting that you look for the positives in people. I think, to some extent, we all do. If I am forced to have a conversation with someone I don't know then the natural reaction is to find common ground and talk about something where you can both make a contribution to the conversation. To do the opposite and start talking about something that upsets or completely sidelines the other person would be an odd way to behave.

I think we all try and interact with what we see as he positives in other people, it is just that some of us don't like to admit it.

For one thing, it sounds a bit gay :D

Well, I should qualify my position by saying that as an introvert I often avoid talking to people at all, and there are some people I absolutely do not want to have a conversation with as it is all too awkward, but where it matters (the workplace) to make interactions with people I am quite personable and seek to establish good relations by looking for people's qualities. The only people I am likely to characterise as stupid are salesmen, for thinking that I might fall for their bullshít

If that's gay then so be it but I should remind you that there is nothing wrong with being gay in twenty-seventen, young man. :nono:

[Peter]

Well, I should qualify my position by saying that as an introvert I often avoid talking to people at all, and there are some people I absolutely do not want to have a conversation with as it is all too awkward, but where it matters (the workplace) to make interactions with people I am quite personable and seek to establish good relations by looking for people's qualities. The only people I am likely to characterise as stupid are salesmen, for thinking that I might fall for their bullshít

If that's gay then so be it but I should remind you that there is nothing wrong with being gay in twenty-seventen, young man. :nono:

Ah, but salesmen don't judge, do they. The fact is that some people will fall for their bull**** and its their job to believe that you might be one of them. A good salesman convinces himself and you. He isn't stupid.....

As much as I want to hate people, I don't. Through work I have discovered that I am actually far better than most as establishing relationships with them and getting them onside. I reserve the right to despise them personally, and myself. :)

[Peter]

And, by implication, how clever we ourselves are. There's nothing wrong with it really, so long as one doesn't get caught believing one's own intelligence necessarily makes others stupid.

Or that one's own intelligence makes one interesting to other people, funny, right, attractive to the opposite sex, and immune from getting one's ****ing round in.

[Ash]

I agree that there's an imbalance, but you can't say I am somehow reluctant or unwilling to talk about people whom I respect intellectually. Whenever I have cause to do so, I will promote or talk about something or someone I admire. If, for example, by mentioning the wonderful Sam Harris in a recent post, I learned that a few Awimbers had googled him and discovered his work, I would be absolutely delighted.

I have binged him and bookmarked his blog. :thumbup:

Ok, so you can respect those who have achieved great things in philosophy and neuroscience. Less so ordinary folk, pehaps.

[Monty92]

I have binged him and bookmarked his blog. :thumbup:

Ok, so you can respect those who have achieved great things in philosophy and neuroscience. Less so ordinary folk, pehaps.

There are a number of "ordinary folk" who post on Awimb that I respect (and who I consider smarter than me) and have openly said so. So there's one data point to refute your claim.

[Ash]

Ah, but salesmen don't judge, do they. The fact is that some people will fall for their bull**** and its their job to believe that you might be one of them. A good salesman convinces himself and you. He isn't stupid.....

As much as I want to hate people, I don't. Through work I have discovered that I am actually far better than most as establishing relationships with them and getting them onside. I reserve the right to despise them personally, and myself. :)

I think the problem with salesmen is that they think (yes, I know it is their job) that I am stupid enough to believe their bollix, so am forced in return to think that they are stupid to think that I am that stupid.

Of course, Monty could be right and that deep down I do generally think people are stupid, but a strongly-developed layer of morality disapproves of such sneering, arrogant condescenion by covering it up with a fog of warm respect. I doubt it, though. i don't think I'm clever enough to do that.

[Peter]

There are a number of "ordinary folk" who post on Awimb that I respect (and who I consider smarter than me) and have openly said so. So there's one data point to refute your claim.

Burney is NOT ordinary folk....

[Peter]

I think the problem with salesmen is that they think (yes, I know it is their job) that I am stupid enough to believe their bollix, so am forced in return to think that they are stupid to think that I am that stupid.

Of course, Monty could be right and that deep down I do generally think people are stupid, but a strongly-developed layer of morality disapproves of such sneering, arrogant condescenion by covering it up with a fog of warm respect. I doubt it, though. i don't think I'm clever enough to do that.

Or maybe you have just matured and realised that the fact that somebody might be a bit stupid doesn't mean you are required to dislike them or look down your nose at them. I know some fairly stupid people that are great fun. I value that......

Its a salesman's job to believe that either you are stupid enough or they are brilliant enough to convince someone that isn't stupid. Delusion seems to be an important part of the role which is why self-aware people like the two of us would never be great at it.

Its also why we get our round in (I am assuming you do)

[redgunamo]

Here's an example: Ten years ago I was screwed over on a property deal. The value of that loss to me is now nearly a quarter of a million pounds.

They clearly did well for themselves there.

And he's helped you avoid nearly a quarter of a million pounds worth of bother.

It all depends on perspective, don't it.

[redgunamo]

Or that one's own intelligence makes one interesting to other people, funny, right, attractive to the opposite sex, and immune from getting one's ****ing round in.

Right. Exactly.

[redgunamo]

I think the problem with salesmen is that they think (yes, I know it is their job) that I am stupid enough to believe their bollix, so am forced in return to think that they are stupid to think that I am that stupid.

Of course, Monty could be right and that deep down I do generally think people are stupid, but a strongly-developed layer of morality disapproves of such sneering, arrogant condescenion by covering it up with a fog of warm respect. I doubt it, though. i don't think I'm clever enough to do that.

It's like the football, isn't it. It's just all part of the game, nothing more. No need to judge anybody at all.

*We* may not have fallen for our new Three-at-the-Back routine, but Guardiola evidently did because the final score says so. It doesn't mean we think he's stupid or lacks intelligence or even that he's a poor coach, does it.

[Ash]

And he's helped you avoid nearly a quarter of a million pounds worth of bother.

It all depends on perspective, don't it.

I have explained what happened before, but there is a football match to go to now, so another time.

Enjoy the match wherever you are watching it.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Excellent.


Isn't it more about making the beginning of June the end of May?

[redgunamo]

I have explained what happened before, but there is a football match to go to now, so another time.

Enjoy the match wherever you are watching it.

You, too :thumbup: