> Anybody who voted for Trump is a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit. What's so complicated?

OK, but then what do you say to all those who "voted for Trump, a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit."?

And those who actually want this right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit to return to office?

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:54:54 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> >
> > Anybody who voted for Trump is a right wing
> > ultra nationalist racist piece of shit. What's so
> > complicated?
>
> OK, but then what do you say to all those who
> "voted for Trump, a right wing ultra nationalist
> racist piece of shit."?

Lock 'em up! ;-)

> And those who actually want this right wing ultra
> nationalist racist piece of shit to return to office?

Lock 'em up! ;-)

dk

On 9/14/2022 4:54 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> Anybody who voted for Trump is a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit. What's so complicated?
>
> OK, but then what do you say to all those who "voted for Trump, a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit."?
>
> And those who actually want this right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit to return to office?

I can't tell if you didn't understand that my comment was hyperbolic and sarcastic, but I suspect you did.

What you don't realize, I think, is that many people a) don't think Trump is as low a character as you do, or even if they don't like his character, support him because they like a sufficient number of his policies, many of which have nothing to do with race or nationalism. In other words, most people are multiple-issue people. The fact that a few of his supporters are pieces of shit doesn't mean all his supporters are, but it serves the Left's political purposes and their need for moral superiority to assert so.

> What you don't realize, I think, is that many people a) don't think Trump is as low a character as you do, or even if they don't like his character, support him because they like a sufficient number of his policies, many of which have nothing to do with race or nationalism. In other words, most people are multiple-issue people. The fact that a few of his supporters are pieces of shit doesn't mean all his supporters are, but it serves the Left's political purposes and their need for moral superiority to assert so.

Well, first of all there no "Left" parties in the USA. Just right wing and a bit less right wing. And of course all parties aim to represent the moral high ground for their political purposes so we can disregard that comment.

But yes, Trump had policies that appealed to many in the electorate, that's clear. But his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and refusal to take action on climate change is unforgivable. And Republicans MUST take responsibility for voting for that. I'm not ever going to forgive US voters who prolong the wait for action on climate change in the USA. Their actions affect the whole world including me in the UK. So no forgiveness for voters who delay the action that is so urgently needed. In the UK we had record summer heat and fires. And that was mild compared to droughts, famine, widespread fires, floods and heat deaths in several other countries. Wake up, guys, wake up.

On 9/14/2022 1:13 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> What you don't realize, I think, is that many people a) don't think Trump is as low a character as you do, or even if they don't like his character, support him because they like a sufficient number of his policies, many of which have nothing to do with race or nationalism. In other words, most people are multiple-issue people. The fact that a few of his supporters are pieces of shit doesn't mean all his supporters are, but it serves the Left's political purposes and their need for moral superiority to assert so.
>
> Well, first of all there no "Left" parties in the USA. Just right wing and a bit less right wing.

If you define the middle as your own personal position, that is correct. Seems kind of arrogant to me.

And of course all parties aim to represent the moral high ground for their political purposes so we can disregard that comment.
>

Not sure who else you speak for, but the Dems make more of a point of that. Think of my minimum wage rant. I'll spare you this time.

> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed to many in the electorate, that's clear. But his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.

>and refusal to take action on climate change is unforgivable.

You only need to forgive moral or ethical laxness, so you're just making my point.

> And Republicans MUST take responsibility for voting for that.

Everyone should take responsibility (whatever that is supposed to mean) for their actions. Sounds like at some point when you are in control, you are planning on taking action against those who opposed you. I guess that happens in most revolutions.

I'm not ever going to forgive US voters who prolong the wait for action on climate change in the USA. Their actions affect the whole world including me in the UK. So no forgiveness for voters who delay the action that is so urgently needed. In the UK we had record summer heat and fires. And that was mild compared to droughts, famine, widespread fires, floods and heat deaths in several other countries. Wake up, guys, wake up.

I'm sure those voters will be distressed to know you won't forgive them. Perhaps they didn't know. If you had (and still can) publicize this more aggressively, you can still sway them. Then you won't have to punish them after the revolution.

On 9/13/2022 7:31 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/13/22 2:18 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>
>>> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously
>>> legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
>>
>> California is usually ahead of the rest of the states in terms of
>> progress on climate change, and a good example of what has to be done.
>> Yes - we need electric cars. And yes, we need to consume less
>> electricity. They are both obviously compatible - people just need to
>> drive less and/or collectively take more train or bus journeys.
>> Simple. Nobody said climate change could be achieved without
>> significant social changes.
>
> Given that China is building more coal-fired generating capacity than
> the rest of the world combined, windmills and solar panels will have no
> measurable on anything--except for killing birds and occupying land that
> could be put to better use.
>
> The problem of having abundant electricity with minimal
> CO2 emissions (which I am not convinced is a problem, but let that go)
> is right there staring us in the face, but is eschewed by people who
> should know better. I speak of nuclear power. But the fearmongers have
> done their job all too well.
>
> Bob Harper

I suspect that even China will start to get the message.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/opinion/international-world/china-heat-climate.html

> I suspect that even China will start to get the message.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/opinion/international-world/china-heat-climate.html

Thanks for the link. I think by now we've all got the message. The only question that needs a response is what action the world's leaders are going to take and how soon.

> > But yes, Trump had policies that appealed to many in the electorate, that's clear. But his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.

What planet are you on, Frank?

On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed to many in the electorate, that's clear. But his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
>
>> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
>
> What planet are you on, Frank?

You continue to make my point. Thank you.

I don't know how it's possible that you don't seem to know that being stupid is not the same as being evil. One does not apologize for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be abused by smart people. It's part of being civilized. I was going to say it's part of being human, decided civilized was more appropriate.

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 23:58:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> >>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed to many in the electorate, that's clear. But his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
> >
> >> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
> >
> > What planet are you on, Frank?
> You continue to make my point. Thank you.
>
> I don't know how it's possible that you don't seem to know that being stupid is not the same as being evil. One does not apologize for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be abused by smart people. It's part of being civilized. I was going to say it's part of being human, decided civilized was more appropriate.

I've spent 30 years as a psychologist listening carefully to around 3,000 people talk, but the thought processes behind your statements are frequently so strange that I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what kind of mind produces them.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:34:49 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 23:58:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > >>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed
> > >>> to many in the electorate, that's clear. But
> > >>> his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
> > >
> > >> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
> > >
> > > What planet are you on, Frank?
> >
> > You continue to make my point. Thank you.
> >
> > I don't know how it's possible that you don't
> > seem to know that being stupid is not the
> > same as being evil. One does not apologize
> > for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be
> > abused by smart people. It's part of being
> > civilized. I was going to say it's part of being
> > human, decided civilized was more appropriate.
>
> I've spent 30 years as a psychologist listening
> carefully to around 3,000 people talk, but the
> thought processes behind your statements are
> frequently so strange that I have the greatest
> difficulty in understanding what kind of mind
> produces them.

Minds molded and shaped by rabbies.

dk

On 9/14/2022 8:34 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 23:58:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed to many in the electorate, that's clear. But his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
>>>
>>>> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
>>>
>>> What planet are you on, Frank?
>> You continue to make my point. Thank you.
>>
>> I don't know how it's possible that you don't seem to know that being stupid is not the same as being evil. One does not apologize for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be abused by smart people. It's part of being civilized. I was going to say it's part of being human, decided civilized was more appropriate.
>
> I've spent 30 years as a psychologist listening carefully to around 3,000 people talk, but the thought processes behind your statements are frequently so strange that I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what kind of mind produces them.

And your statement is unintelligible to me. Explain if you like. I will clarify my thinking if it helps:

You have expressed contempt for people who don't agree with you about the climate crisis. You will not "forgive" them. Why is the question of forgiveness even in your thoughts? What do people who don't believe in the climate crisis or in grand measures to combat it have to be forgiven for? When did it become a crime to be wrong or to be stupid or ignorant?

As a psychoanalyst in this situation, you are aware you have a glaring disqualifying conflict of interest, right?

I suggest you show a respected colleague this exchange (all of it) and ask him who is displaying abnormal behavior? Report back if you like.

On 9/14/2022 8:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:34:49 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 23:58:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed
>>>>>> to many in the electorate, that's clear. But
>>>>>> his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
>>>>
>>>>> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
>>>>
>>>> What planet are you on, Frank?
>>>
>>> You continue to make my point. Thank you.
>>>
>>> I don't know how it's possible that you don't
>>> seem to know that being stupid is not the
>>> same as being evil. One does not apologize
>>> for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be
>>> abused by smart people. It's part of being
>>> civilized. I was going to say it's part of being
>>> human, decided civilized was more appropriate.
>>
>> I've spent 30 years as a psychologist listening
>> carefully to around 3,000 people talk, but the
>> thought processes behind your statements are
>> frequently so strange that I have the greatest
>> difficulty in understanding what kind of mind
>> produces them.
>
> Minds molded and shaped by rabbies.
>
> dk

So many ways to respond to this, but the best is just f*ck you.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/14/2022 8:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:34:49 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 23:58:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> >>>>>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed
> >>>>>> to many in the electorate, that's clear. But
> >>>>>> his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
> >>>>
> >>>>> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> What planet are you on, Frank?
> >>>
> >>> You continue to make my point. Thank you.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know how it's possible that you don't
> >>> seem to know that being stupid is not the
> >>> same as being evil. One does not apologize
> >>> for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be
> >>> abused by smart people. It's part of being
> >>> civilized. I was going to say it's part of being
> >>> human, decided civilized was more appropriate.
> >>
> >> I've spent 30 years as a psychologist listening
> >> carefully to around 3,000 people talk, but the
> >> thought processes behind your statements are
> >> frequently so strange that I have the greatest
> >> difficulty in understanding what kind of mind
> >> produces them.
> >
> > Minds molded and shaped by rabbies.
>
> So many ways to respond to this, but the
> best is just f*ck you.

I heard that one before.

dk

On 9/14/2022 9:45 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:09:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/14/2022 8:53 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 5:34:49 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 23:58:36 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 9/14/2022 6:05 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>> But yes, Trump had policies that appealed
>>>>>>>> to many in the electorate, that's clear. But
>>>>>>>> his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is not a moral or ethical issue at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What planet are you on, Frank?
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to make my point. Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how it's possible that you don't
>>>>> seem to know that being stupid is not the
>>>>> same as being evil. One does not apologize
>>>>> for being stupid. Stupid people are not to be
>>>>> abused by smart people. It's part of being
>>>>> civilized. I was going to say it's part of being
>>>>> human, decided civilized was more appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> I've spent 30 years as a psychologist listening
>>>> carefully to around 3,000 people talk, but the
>>>> thought processes behind your statements are
>>>> frequently so strange that I have the greatest
>>>> difficulty in understanding what kind of mind
>>>> produces them.
>>>
>>> Minds molded and shaped by rabbies.
>>
>> So many ways to respond to this, but the
>> best is just f*ck you.
>
> I heard that one before.
>
> dk

The only time I recall people calling rabbis rabbies they were
skinheads. It's really beneath you, or should be.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:05:41 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>
> As a psychoanalyst in this situation, you are aware you have a glaring disqualifying conflict of interest, right?
>
> I suggest you show a respected colleague this exchange (all of it) and ask him who is displaying abnormal behavior? Report back if you like.

Andy is not a psychoanalyst, but a psychologist. He just said so, and he has at one or two other occasions explained that he has written several well-received books on the psychology of performance, in particular musical performance.
The way you ignore this and make this into something else, thus defining the discussion YOU want to have, on YOUR terms, and immediately denigrate Andy ('glaring disqualifying') is typical of your m.o.
I'm guessing Any has not ran into this behavior over the course of thirty years, because it's online behavior. People don't usually do the kind of stuff in real life you do here on a daily basis. Some time ago I proposed you reconsider this tone, but of course you don't. This tone is what you come on RMCR for. It's why you go on and on, and always insist on having the last word, and then some.
Second, climate crisis is not something you can choose to 'believe' in, in the way one can say 'I'll believe it when I see it.' That's an attitude of the past, even though people with some awareness knew this fifty years ago.
At times, in moments of candor, you have expressed indifference to what happens to the next generations due to your generation's wasteful habits. What's going to happen to the next generations is not just they're going to drive different cars; they're going to die. The inhabitable world is going to die. I know the answer of an old man, stuck in his habits, is "I don't think so," but I can imagine that Andy, who's quite passionate about this, would find indifference about this immoral.

> Andy is not a psychoanalyst, but a psychologist. He just said so, and he has at one or two other occasions explained that he has written several well-received books on the psychology of performance, in particular musical performance.
> The way you ignore this and make this into something else, thus defining the discussion YOU want to have, on YOUR terms, and immediately denigrate Andy ('glaring disqualifying') is typical of your m.o.
> I'm guessing Any has not ran into this behavior over the course of thirty years, because it's online behavior. People don't usually do the kind of stuff in real life you do here on a daily basis. Some time ago I proposed you reconsider this tone, but of course you don't. This tone is what you come on RMCR for. It's why you go on and on, and always insist on having the last word, and then some.
> Second, climate crisis is not something you can choose to 'believe' in, in the way one can say 'I'll believe it when I see it.' That's an attitude of the past, even though people with some awareness knew this fifty years ago.
> At times, in moments of candor, you have expressed indifference to what happens to the next generations due to your generation's wasteful habits. What's going to happen to the next generations is not just they're going to drive different cars; they're going to die. The inhabitable world is going to die. I know the answer of an old man, stuck in his habits, is "I don't think so," but I can imagine that Andy, who's quite passionate about this, would find indifference about this immoral.

Thank you Herman. You understand me completely, and you express your thoughts so clearly it reminds me of reading Bertrand Russell, which is one of the great pleasures of reading.

On 9/15/2022 1:43 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:05:41 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>>
>> As a psychoanalyst in this situation, you are aware you have a glaring disqualifying conflict of interest, right?
>>
>> I suggest you show a respected colleague this exchange (all of it) and ask him who is displaying abnormal behavior? Report back if you like.
>
> Andy is not a psychoanalyst, but a psychologist. He just said so, and he has at one or two other occasions explained that he has written several well-received books on the psychology of performance, in particular musical performance.
> The way you ignore this and make this into something else, thus defining the discussion YOU want to have, on YOUR terms, and immediately denigrate Andy ('glaring disqualifying') is typical of your m.o.
> I'm guessing Any has not ran into this behavior over the course of thirty years, because it's online behavior. People don't usually do the kind of stuff in real life you do here on a daily basis. Some time ago I proposed you reconsider this tone, but of course you don't. This tone is what you come on RMCR for. It's why you go on and on, and always insist on having the last word, and then some.
> Second, climate crisis is not something you can choose to 'believe' in, in the way one can say 'I'll believe it when I see it.' That's an attitude of the past, even though people with some awareness knew this fifty years ago.
> At times, in moments of candor, you have expressed indifference to what happens to the next generations due to your generation's wasteful habits. What's going to happen to the next generations >is not just they're going to drive different cars; they're going to die. The inhabitable world is going to die. I know the answer of an old man, stuck in his habits, is "I don't think so," but I >can imagine that Andy, who's quite passionate about this, would find indifference about this immoral.

In the U.S., a "psychologist" may be a therapist. Since he sounds like a therapist, invoking his psychology credentials, in judging my psyche, I'd say he committed fraud, if not malpractice. It is not my job to know what kind of a psychologist he is.

I have never expressed indifference to what happens to the next generation. That is a fabrication. Prove it. You always say things like that, I ask you to prove it and you never do.

Regarding the future. You do not know what is going to happen as you seem to; as Andy seems to. You believe it's going to happen. Sure based on your interpretation of the scientific evidence. I could as easily claim you have "chosen" to believe it as your claim that doubters have.

On 9/15/2022 5:47 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>
>> Andy is not a psychoanalyst, but a psychologist. He just said so, and he has at one or two other occasions explained that he has written several well-received books on the psychology of performance, in particular musical performance.
>> The way you ignore this and make this into something else, thus defining the discussion YOU want to have, on YOUR terms, and immediately denigrate Andy ('glaring disqualifying') is typical of your m.o.
>> I'm guessing Any has not ran into this behavior over the course of thirty years, because it's online behavior. People don't usually do the kind of stuff in real life you do here on a daily basis. Some time ago I proposed you reconsider this tone, but of course you don't. This tone is what you come on RMCR for. It's why you go on and on, and always insist on having the last word, and then some.
>> Second, climate crisis is not something you can choose to 'believe' in, in the way one can say 'I'll believe it when I see it.' That's an attitude of the past, even though people with some awareness knew this fifty years ago.
>> At times, in moments of candor, you have expressed indifference to what happens to the next generations due to your generation's wasteful habits. What's going to happen to the next generations is not just they're going to drive different cars; they're going to die. The inhabitable world is going to die. I know the answer of an old man, stuck in his habits, is "I don't think so," but I can imagine that Andy, who's quite passionate about this, would find indifference about this immoral.
>
> Thank you Herman. You understand me completely, and you express your thoughts so clearly it reminds me of reading Bertrand Russell, which is one of the great pleasures of reading.

If you are not an analyst you should act like one, even on-line.

> If you are not an analyst you should act like one, even on-line.

Just to clear this up, I'm not a psychoanalyst and I'm not a therapist and haven't ever been either. I'm a psychologist and a performance coach for clients in the arts and media. And anyway, I'm now retired and non-practising.

I'm not going to engage in any other kind of dialogue. That's it.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:46:27 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/15/2022 1:43 AM, Herman wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:05:41 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> As a psychoanalyst in this situation, you are aware you have a glaring disqualifying conflict of interest, right?
> >>
> >> I suggest you show a respected colleague this exchange (all of it) and ask him who is displaying abnormal behavior? Report back if you like.
> >
> > Andy is not a psychoanalyst, but a psychologist. He just said so, and he has at one or two other occasions explained that he has written several well-received books on the psychology of performance, in particular musical performance.
> > The way you ignore this and make this into something else, thus defining the discussion YOU want to have, on YOUR terms, and immediately denigrate Andy ('glaring disqualifying') is typical of your m.o.
> > I'm guessing Any has not ran into this behavior over the course of thirty years, because it's online behavior. People don't usually do the kind of stuff in real life you do here on a daily basis. Some time ago I proposed you reconsider this tone, but of course you don't. This tone is what you come on RMCR for. It's why you go on and on, and always insist on having the last word, and then some.
> > Second, climate crisis is not something you can choose to 'believe' in, in the way one can say 'I'll believe it when I see it.' That's an attitude of the past, even though people with some awareness knew this fifty years ago.
> > At times, in moments of candor, you have expressed indifference to what happens to the next generations due to your generation's wasteful habits. What's going to happen to the next generations >is not just they're going to drive different cars; they're going to die. The inhabitable world is going to die. I know the answer of an old man, stuck in his habits, is "I don't think so," but I >can imagine that Andy, who's quite passionate about this, would find indifference about this immoral.
> In the U.S., a "psychologist" may be a therapist. Since he sounds like a therapist, invoking his psychology credentials, in judging my psyche, I'd say he committed fraud, if not malpractice. It is not my job to know what kind of a psychologist he is.
>
>
Doubling down as usual.

On 9/15/2022 9:39 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> If you are not an analyst you should act like one, even on-line.
>
> Just to clear this up, I'm not a psychoanalyst and I'm not a therapist and haven't ever been either. I'm a psychologist and a performance coach for clients in the arts and media. And anyway, I'm now retired and non-practising.
>
> I'm not going to engage in any other kind of dialogue. That's it.

I meant to say if you are not an analyst you should NOT act like one (I don't know if you were deliberately dishonest or not), even on-line. You might well withdraw from this exchange as you have acted unprofessionally. I wonder if you have violated your professional organization's standards by engaging in psychoanalysis of people you have not met, when you are not even a psychoanalyst.

On 9/15/2022 10:04 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:46:27 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/15/2022 1:43 AM, Herman wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:05:41 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a psychoanalyst in this situation, you are aware you have a glaring disqualifying conflict of interest, right?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you show a respected colleague this exchange (all of it) and ask him who is displaying abnormal behavior? Report back if you like.
>>>
>>> Andy is not a psychoanalyst, but a psychologist. He just said so, and he has at one or two other occasions explained that he has written several well-received books on the psychology of performance, in particular musical performance.
>>> The way you ignore this and make this into something else, thus defining the discussion YOU want to have, on YOUR terms, and immediately denigrate Andy ('glaring disqualifying') is typical of your m.o.
>>> I'm guessing Any has not ran into this behavior over the course of thirty years, because it's online behavior. People don't usually do the kind of stuff in real life you do here on a daily basis. Some time ago I proposed you reconsider this tone, but of course you don't. This tone is what you come on RMCR for. It's why you go on and on, and always insist on having the last word, and then some.
>>> Second, climate crisis is not something you can choose to 'believe' in, in the way one can say 'I'll believe it when I see it.' That's an attitude of the past, even though people with some awareness knew this fifty years ago.
>>> At times, in moments of candor, you have expressed indifference to what happens to the next generations due to your generation's wasteful habits. What's going to happen to the next generations >is not just they're going to drive different cars; they're going to die. The inhabitable world is going to die. I know the answer of an old man, stuck in his habits, is "I don't think so," but I >can imagine that Andy, who's quite passionate about this, would find indifference about this immoral.
>> In the U.S., a "psychologist" may be a therapist. Since he sounds like a therapist, invoking his psychology credentials, in judging my psyche, I'd say he committed fraud, if not malpractice. It is not my job to know what kind of a psychologist he is.
>>
>>
> Doubling down as usual.

You could counter my statement with reason, but you never do.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:09:30 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> I meant to say if you are not an analyst you should NOT act like one (I don't know if you were deliberately dishonest or not), even on-line. You might well withdraw from this exchange as you have acted unprofessionally. I wonder if you have violated your professional organization's standards by engaging in psychoanalysis of people you have not met, when you are not even a psychoanalyst.

Well, no one needs to be a psychoanalyst nor a desk psychologist to see you're a very cranky old man, Frank, who can't let go of the tiniest thing.
You clearly have no idea what psychoanalysis consists of or what it looks like. You may or may not recall this is a group about recorded music; no one acts 'professionally' here, nor should they.
Let me just add that on all levels Andy is by far your superior, as a man who worked to make the world a beter place, rather than just looking out for his self-interest, so maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and stop this pathetic heckling.

> You clearly have no idea what psychoanalysis consists of or what it looks like. You may or may not recall this is a group about recorded music; no one acts 'professionally' here, nor should they.
> Let me just add that on all levels Andy is by far your superior, as a man who worked to make the world a beter place, rather than just looking out for his self-interest, so maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and stop this pathetic heckling.

Herman - I can't relate to the idea of being "superior" in any way, so I don't want to be associated with that idea. I started life as a professional musician and I did indeed see a lot of cases where musicians wanted to talk with someone who understood their careers and lifestyles. This led me into coaching musicians and other performers and if I've been of any help so much the better. Just to put to bed once and for all any mention of psychoanalysis, a performance coach is the same as a sports coach or a fitness coach or any other kind of coach, the only difference being working with performers as a group. There is no kind of psychoanalysis or therapy involved in performance coaching, just as sport psychologists have nothing to do with therapy and are not members of any kind of therapeutic professional body. They simply work to optimise performance, though various strategies and other devices. I hope this makes things clearer.