On 13 Dec 2020 at 12:58pm IDM wrote:
Hello again posters. With regard to the challenge to "Trumpian", I think an appropriate change to orthography might be "TrumPian", in homage to our favourite poster.
On 13 Dec 2020 at 2:31pm Tom Pain wrote:
The challenged minds suffering from the mental disorder of trump psychosis seem beyond help. They are under the delusion that mentioning the name immediately confers opprobrium on the recipient and moral superiority on the deliverer. Devotees of the cult are also under the delusion that the head of the corporation known as the USA, acting under the laws of bankruptcy since 1933 is representing the people who voted for him. He, like Johnson is a company with obligations only to his stakeholders. I presume that orthography plays a major part in idm's life if he has legal training. Legalese is a language employed by the legal profession very similar to common English but giving a different meaning to many of the words. The job of most courts is to enforce corporate policy not justice but they don't go out of their way to inform you of the fact.
On 13 Dec 2020 at 5:10pm Tom Pain wrote:
It seems there's a scandal brewing in Germany over the Drosten PCR tests, endorsed and recommended by the WHO One of the issues is a blatant conflict of interests. Another is to do with the instructions on setting up and carrying out the tests. Yet another is the test itself. As I posted previously to howling vilification and abuse,the test if run over 30 cycles will produce many false positives. I offered proof in a video of Dr.Fauchi saying it. This of course was deemed irrelevant by a self described "expert" in the field. The Drosten test runs 45. This would seem to me to be designed to produce false positives but then greenie proclaims as an incontrovertible fact that I am a conspiracy theorist, so my opinion is irrelevant. The worries of millions of people tested positive may be groundless and the £billions spent may be wasted on what seems to be an extremely compromised procedure. I'm keeping an open mind on the affair but you can bet that the financially involved in conflicts of interest members of sage won't.
On 13 Dec 2020 at 11:35pm IDM wrote:
Does "Trump psychosis" mean psychosis experienced by Trump or psychotic episodes concerning Trump experienced by others? I have a horrible feeling that you don't actually know which you mean. Do not mix up psychosis with delusion; they are effectively opposites.
You are right; a few law cases do turn on orthography, but it's not very common. Words are used in law in a different way to normal language, because normal language can sometimes be a bit wooly and the law must be as certain as it can be. That is why the SIs have to define "vulnerable". In normal language different people will have different ideas as to what it might mean. You have to still be careful though - the SIs use "vulnerable" in two different senses!
On 14 Dec 2020 at 1:24pm Tom Pain wrote:
I know exactly what I'm saying and so do you. I'm sure you find it amusing to associate my name with trump in such an overt manner, displaying the sledge hammer finesse of quite a few posters hereabouts. It may well be that we speak different languages and I'm completely mistaken but I pick up an attitude of smug condescension in your remarks. You address only the most trivial aspects of what I say and waffle on in ever decreasing circles leaving me baffled as to whether or not you mean anything at all. Perhaps you've been working too hard in the Ministry of Circumlocution with the SIs, who or whatever they are.
On 15 Dec 2020 at 11:07am Tom Pain wrote:
It looks as if the ferret has thrown his toys out of the pram for the last time but I'm sure he will be out of his lair again with a new mask. Dreamer faded away and gradually morphed into an acronym but I'm sure he's bipolar enough to carry two identities. Such larks Master Pip!
On 15 Dec 2020 at 11:46pm IDM wrote:
TP, if you look at 13 Dec 23-35, you will see that I agree with you about legalise and common speech being different, hence my example of "vulnerable". I am also completely serious about not understanding 13 Dec14-31. I do not think that generally there is a problem about terms being used differently in legalise and common speech though. I would say that a more common problem is legalise sometimes never being used in commoon speech, so when faced with the term hardly anybody understands it. How many people would say "stare decisis" or "mens sana"? They would be used in "translation"; "precedent" and "with guilty mind" or "deliberately".
I'm not sure I have used circumlocution in any posts here, but I do use them, essentially when communicating with someone of poorer education.
Hence changing "There is some dispute in the US about problems with mail-in voting." to "There's a row in America about who won the election."
You're obviously intelligent and well-educated; but you lose stature by holding forth in areas where you are not at your strongest (like mental health). What you call "bipolar" is actually "disociative identity disorder", in times gone past "schizophrenia".
On 15 Dec 2020 at 11:51pm IDM wrote:
Forgot to say TP. If you don't know what SIs are, you aren't too hot on the legal side either; or perhaps just living on a different planet from the first lockdown.
On 16 Dec 2020 at 8:21am janet street preacher wrote:
I don’t know what SIs are either.
I tend to think using obscure acronyms is smugly condescending and more about trying to show how ‘in-the-know’ one is rather than focusing on conveying the point.
On 16 Dec 2020 at 4:43pm Mark wrote:
Yes indeed, Janet. I would add that Dissociative Identity Disorder has nothing at all to do with Schizophrenia. They're completely distinct conditions. And delusions can be, and often are, features of psychosis. A schizophrenic can be delusional. Someone with Identity Disorder would rarely be.
On 16 Dec 2020 at 4:47pm Mark wrote:
And bipolar affective disorder is something entirely different from either condition.
On 16 Dec 2020 at 11:42pm IDM wrote:
TP. 13 Dec 14-31. I have thought of an example to support you about the same word being used in different ways - "expert witness".
On 16 Dec 2020 at 11:57pm IDM wrote:
I agree completely Mark, The three terms are nothing to do with each other. That is what I was trying to explain to TP. My reference to schizophrenia was to note that the word is still popularly used to mean dissociative identity disorder (Jekyll and Hyde).
The only doubt I have is that delusion and psychosis are often lumped together now, because (for a carer) they may produce similar symptoms. It doesn't matter much to the carer which it is. It is the same with paranoia and psychosis. But these three terms to refer to different mechanisms and may need different treatment. In a similar way, Alzheimers is usually lumped in with dementia now.
On 17 Dec 2020 at 11:55am Tom Pain wrote:
Absolutely correct Dreamexpert, DIM,30 Feb 1984, the miasma of your circumlocution penetrates the occlusion of Fraudian psychology with the most trenchant acumen. Your wasted talent could be put to use in the government's Behavioural Insights Team or perhaps the SAGE team whose opacity and contradictory tendencies seem made for you.
On 17 Dec 2020 at 11:39pm IDM wrote:
I would still claim Mark, that delusion and psychosis are different. I am hardly an expert; but it has always been my understanding that psychosis involves reaction (usually completely rational) to a perceived stimulus which does not actually exist, whereas delusion is an incorrect interpretation of a stimulus which actually does exist.
I recently had a heated exchange with someone who told me that a patient with psychosis was irrational!
On 17 Dec 2020 at 11:49pm IDM wrote:
Help! Can anyone tell me what "Your post has been quarantined" means? It disappeared without appearing on thread after two days.
On 19 Dec 2020 at 10:25pm IDM wrote:
Two strangers meeting in a pub who move into talking about a particular subject will fairly quickly know the other party's knowledge of the subject and modify their language accordingly. That cannot happen on here. Those less educated (not generally, in the subject under discussion) will describe a poster as "pompous", "know-all", "hi-faluting", "show off" etc. Those at the other end of the spectrum will describe a poster as "simplistic", "technically incorrect", "ignorant", "talking down" etc. It is impossible to get it at the right level for everyone.
On 19 Dec 2020 at 11:24pm IDM wrote:
SIs are a form of delegated legislation (like Orders in Council). They are made under an enabling Act when the law needs to be expanded (supposedly with extreme urgency), changed or (usually for another SI) amended. Sometimes Acts give delegated power to amend the Act itself (a Henry VIII clause), but this is generally seen as unconstitutional.
SIs are subject to scrutiny by Parliament. with the negative procedure, if Parliament does nothing the SI remains on the table and continues as law. With the affirmative procedure, Parliament must actively approve the SI or it ceases to be law. The great problem here is that by the time the latter has happened the SI may have been in force for several weeks, sometimes causing substantial controversial effects.
SIs often have long complicated titles, which are hard to remember and produce a serious mouthful or keying load. Fortunately, the Queen's Printer numbers SIs as Year/Number which appears on the SI when it is printed. The original draft cannot have the SI reference in it, because the drafter will not know where the SI is "in the queue". The printed SI will be headed with the correct technical expansion of "Statutory Instrument" and give the number.
Coronavirus SIs can be extremely complex. The one introducing the "Rule of Six" (SI 2020 558) was supposed to be a major simplification, but it was actually 7 1/2 computer screens' worth. This is because, throughout, there have been exemptions and we now have exceptions to the exemptions. As the great man said "Ignorance of the law is no defence.", but it is becoming increasingly difficult not to break the law by accident
I am still surprised, though, by ignorance of what SIs are when we have been living under a clutch of them for many months.
On 20 Dec 2020 at 3:12pm IDM wrote:
With regard to 15 Dec 11.46 pm. The example I gave for circumlocution was quite wrong. It was a simplification. It's quite difficult to think of a proper example which isn't simplification or euphemism. How about "He always believes that things should be left as they are." to avoid the word "conservative"?
On 20 Dec 2020 at 3:20pm IDM wrote:
TP 17 Dec 11-55 am. Sorry about all the posts but I've got a lot of catching up to do. I know nothing about Behavioural Science. I have no formal medical training, merely picking up odds and ends through contact with patients and mental health professionals. I am not sure about SAGE being contradictory, it changes advice in response to changing data. However, members do put different weight on parts of that advice.
On 20 Dec 2020 at 7:01pm Hyena wrote:
Given the content of some posts on this thread, I find it ironic that you seem to be having a conversation with yourself.