Charities

[Sam Slater]

I never said you was a trained psychologist either. I said you professed to have studied it, and you did say that, here.

I did assume that since you've studied it at a decent level that you may have followed it up professionally. My assumption was obviously wrong. Still, I didn't say you professed to be 'trained'.

There is a difference between an assumption being wrong and an accusation. You are guilty of the latter and I the former. Not that it leaves us tied. A false accusation is a much more serious matter, don't you agree?

[Sam Slater]

I said: "Tbh I don't think a trained psychologist would need to capitalise the word 'nothing' to undermine another's education on something."

That is not accusing you of professing to be a trained psychologist, it is assuming you are due to an earlier post where you professed to studying it as a post-grad. I admitted my assumption was wrong.

It is, I think, pretty straight forward, Keith.

[mrmcfister]

Ladies...pleeese!

[Sam Slater]

I said 'trained'.

I did not say 'you profess to be trained'.

That difference, I think, is where you get confused.

I owe you zero beers; no, make that one beer as you don't believe in zeros, do you? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha............

[David Johnson]

You said
"Charities are a nasty type of business which exist because of the tax free benefits. The trustees get their salaries, bonuses and company cars long before a penny goes to charity and in the case of one charity-worker I talked to, force their staff to retire at 60, quite nasty people really. "

Yeah, couldnt agree more. All those people involved in charities are vermin. The really useful, valuable members of society are the ones who seem to spend all their time on internet boards. Eh?