Charities

[David Johnson]

"Go away you pretend socialist and troll somewhere else."

What? And miss out on the conclusion of your discussion with Sam as to whether he called you a "trained pyschologist" or not?

Sometimes Keith, I don't know if you realise how cruel you can be.

[SexDwarf]

"It's just another sales-based business." Needless to say I disagree, charities do often have productive outcomes which other sales-based business' dont have and Im sure the 1000's of unpaid volunteers who make up the bulk of charity workers would be suprised to hear about the 100% commissions not to mention company cars mentioned by other posters.
I think even charity "businesses" remain one of the most accessible ways of trying to see your own values and prioreties realised even if not everyone involved is doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

On to more pressing matters though, I'll probably be disappointed but tell me more about this "hardcore marketing". In what sense was it hardcore? Do the telesales people have rasping husky voices like marielle frostrup? Do they conclude their calls with a crechendo of orgasmic squeals if you promise to make a donation That wouldnt be a bad idea. They could leave cards in the few remaining phone boxes eg one with a seductive but lithe African girl with parted glossy red lips with the text I want you to put something in my mouth and when you turn the card it would say food with a number to ring. A picture of a buxom lady (if you like big breasts call) for cancer research.
I would say one with a more mature lady which reads I start to shake every time you touch me for Parkinsons research or I like to gargle for something like the spastics society /the artist formerly known as the spastic society ie scope now but that would probably be in bad taste so I wont.

[Sam Slater]

Gentlemen ? please.

Besides some sort of mental deficiency I cannot conceive how Mr. Rasputin really thinks I called him a 'trained psychologist due to my posts being there for his examination. The fact that this is so inclines me to presume teasing; he is like a little boy pulling the pigtails of some bonny lass he's taken a shine to.

Yes, I think he loves me in his own little way, and therefore I fear for his future constitution; I'm sad -for him- to say that nothing could come of this and it causes me not a small vexation to break it to the poor man.

[Guilbert]

Some of these cancer research charities are a bit of con.

We have a cancer research shop in our high street, but it only seems to consist of a load of old ladies selling second hand clothes.

They dont seem to be doing any cancer research at all.

[Sam Slater]

My dear Keith, I thought I'd already explained everything. Even in the post you've quoted I never said you professed to be a trained psychologist. The sentence, "Tbh I don't think a trained psychologist would need to capitalise the word 'nothing' to undermine another's education on something," does imply that I assumed you were, and in that I have already admitted this here.

An assumption that you are something is not calling you it; more importantly, it is not accusing you of professing to be one, which, I think, was your original complaint, here.

The statement, "I'm not a trained psychologist, never claimed such as thing...no no no... ," from you implies that you thought I'd accused you of claiming to be a trained psychologist, when in fact I just stated, 'Tbh I don't think a trained psychologist would need to capitalise the word 'nothing' to undermine another's education on something.'

This is pretty clear; this I have already said; this, I thought, was enough to calm your annoyances. It seems you are still as confused as you were over 24 hours ago, or, you're playing silly-buggers. I do hope it's the latter, for your sake.

[quote]Somebody who refers to the science of psychology as 'theory of mind' is really bullshitting into the wind.[/quote]

I've heard of pissing into the wind but this is a new one. I think, Keith, that you just like undermining peoples' knowledge without knowing too much yourself. Now, I admit I don't know too much about the subject, but I cannot fathom for the life of me how you come to such a definite conclusion based on one single phrase. If I'd have referred to psychology as 'the study of the sexual courtship displays of the common badger' I think you'd have had a point. Sure, psychology is, as you say, an empirical science, but it is also part theory. I cannot see how such a science can be 100% applied science. In fact, from wiki: "A professional theorist or practitioner of psychology is called a psychologist." Hell, there's even a magazine devoted to psychology called 'Theory and Psychology'. I don't know much about it of course but it's there for all to see.

But this isn't about me defending my knowledge on psychology. As I've already admitted, I don't know too much. This whole thread, Keith, is about you jumping to conclusions, misreading my posts (purposely or due to incompetence) and trying your best to belittle people.

All this, of course, has gone way off the original topic in which we were discussing charities. You, again, missed my point about Dick Moby's logic surrounding worthy/unworthy charities and rather than admit it you took the debate along a different path, for, what I conceive to be, is an attempt to gloss over your original argument which you must have realised was a little foolish.

Find the post where I accuse you of professing to be a trained psychologist and I'll send you some of my unwashed boxers, which is what you're really after, isn't it?

Ho-hum.