Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Warning: You are about to enter the Twilight Zone.
Imagine, if you will, that you live in a state where a governor wields extraordinary power over its residents. Imagine, if you will, that your governor has the legal
authority to appoint an “Emergency Manager” to oversee the local government in the town where you reside. Imagine that the monetary compensation for the Emergency Manager of your community has no cap. Imagine that your Emergency Manager declares that there’s a financial emergency in your town and then takes over control of it. Imagine that the Emergency Manager can break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services—and can also fire duly elected public officials who serve your community. Imagine, if you will, that the Emergency Manager empowered by your governor to run your town has the right to dissolve your school district and to disincorporate your town. AND imagine that you and your fellow residents have no say about what is going on! Just imagine how you might feel if you lived in a state where that kind of thing was going on. Well, the people who live in Michigan may not have to imagine much longer.
Who, you might ask, will be responsible for transforming the state of Michigan into a Rod Serlingesque otherworldly undemocratic Twilight Zone right here in the United States? Why, Governor Rick Snyder and his bold band of Republican state legislators–that’s who. In January, Governor Snyder called for “Emergency Manager” legislation—and the Republican state legislators were more than happy to comply with his request.
This all seems hard to believe, doesn’t it? I’m not making it up. Karen Bouffard of The Detroit News reported the following: Legislation that would allow emergency financial managers to throw out union contracts and overrule elected officials in financially distressed municipalities and school districts was approved Wednesday by the state Senate. Similar legislation passed in the House in February, and the two chambers are working on a final version to send to Gov. Rick Snyder.
In an article published in The Michigan Messenger, Eartha Jane Melzer wrote:
Under the law whole cities or school districts could be eliminated without any public participation or oversight, and amendments designed to provide minimal safeguards and public involvement were voted down.
An amendment to require Emergency Managers to hold monthly public meetings to let people know how they are governing was rejected by Senate Republicans, along with proposals to cap Emergency Manager compensation and require that those appointed to run school districts have some background in education.
Critics say that Republicans are manipulating concerns about budget problems in order to consolidate power by undermining unions.
According to E. D. Kain: Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all – whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that.
Mark Gaffney, Michigan State President of the AFL-CIO said: This is a takeover by the right wing and it’s an assault on democracy like I’ve never seen.
Do you agree with Mark Gaffney? Do you think what’s going on in Michigan is an assault on democracy?
SOURCES
Rachel Maddow Exposes Michigan Republicans Secret War On Democracy (Politicus USA)
Michigan Governor Plays Fast and Loose with Democracy, Invokes Radical New Powers (Forbes)
Michigan Republicans Use Budget Crisis to make Outrageous Assault on Democracy (AFL-CIO)
Michigan Senate passes emergency manager bills (Daily Tribune)
Emergency managers bill sweeps toward final approval (The Michigan Messenger)
Conyers: Emergency Manager bill ‘raises serious constitutional concerns’ (The Michigan Messenger)
Financial manager bill passes Michigan Senate (The Detroit News)
Michigan bill would impose “financial martial law” (CBS News)
First, the three points:
1) There is no false dichotomy there. It is a statement of fact. Until you can disprove the truthfulness of the fact as asserted and do so with evidence, you have not disproven the fact. Thus nothing is refuted.
2) Rosenberg’s Non-violent Communication is a bunch of New Age-y psychobabble based on yet another faulty premise. NVC begins by assuming that we are all innately compassionate – which is nonsense in the face of the psychological reality of sociopaths and psychopaths who are inherently absent compassion but may still be semi-functional in society and thus creating interactions that can and will cause adversity. NVC has no application to legal disputes or the field of law. None. You’re applying, yet again, an inappropriate tool for the job. Even if everyone were equally compassionate, that would still not eliminate adversity. People still get wronged as a wrong is a matter of relative perception. You are also committing the logical error of argument by non-sequitur also known as the informal fallacy of square logic: A complex argument which is an iteration of non-sequitur arguments used as a premise for an unrelated conclusion. Thus nothing is refuted.
3) The Inuit had a tribal/shamanistic culture that settled disputes by either violence or appeals to tribal or shamanistic authority. They were a culture, not a civilization that lived in large groups. They didn’t live in large enough groups to merit formal structures like codified laws and courts but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have rules. In fact, they had three sets of rules:
* maligait refers to what has to be followed
* piqujait refers to what has to be done
* tirigusuusiit refers to what has to be avoided
If any of these rules were broken, the tribal elder and/or the shaman (angakkuq) would intervene. This is a primitive state known as rudimentary law that is only possible in small groups living largely in isolation. That they had no formal courts is irrelevant as they did have a person in the tribe who indeed functioned as a judge. Again, you are attempting to argue by non-sequitur/using square logic – a logical fallacy yet again.
Now, the follow up conditions (including your answers in italics):
Do so without fallacious logic, appeals to religion, appeals to your own misplaced authority, making up a definition, distorting history or otherwise lying.
Already accomplished.
Oh, but mission not accomplished, Brian. You falsely characterized a statement of fact as a false dichotomy and did not refute the truth of the statement with any evidence and you committed two logical fallacies back to back.
Until you can disprove those statements in a formally correct and factually honest manner?
This question? makes no sense to me, it is an isolated clause and not a sentence; however, your false claims of 1), 2), and 3) have already been refuted with verifiable facts.
But the question makes perfect sense as the truthfulness of my claims still stand as you 1) failed to prove a false dichotomy and failed to refute the truth of the assertion in an evidentiary manner, 2) committed the logical error of square logic/argument by non-sequitur and 3) committed the logical error of square logic/argument by non-sequitur. Galileo wouldn’t make the same logical error twice in a row!
You will remain completely and utterly defeated in your “work” and relegated to the depths of trollery and nuisance posting.
I have not been “defeated” in any way or manner whatsoever.
Oh, but yes, Brian, you have been defeated in every way and manner but namely by logic and fact. Your “work” is indefensible crap, your posts are full of antisocial destructive trollery and your postings are a complete nuisance that only serve to make you feel important and annoy every-fucking-one else. You cannot prove your assertions, ergo, you have been defeated. Lost. Sent away a loser in the contest of ideas.
Now be a gentleman and retire from the field.
Dr. Harris,
I hadn’t engaged you on-topic per your discussions because it appeared clearly to me that you believe them completely. To try and discuss why I personally don’t see eye-to-eye would be to open myself up to the world in ways in which I don’t want to – only of course to see nothing change.
You believe as you do. Obviously you have to cast your work upon the water and let it be of value as it may.
But now that I’m here…
I don’t believe it “letting people off the hook.” In other words, not assigning blame. Not for some people.
People hurt other people sometimes. Usually because they’re not aware of the consequences that they’re having on others. Sometimes because it isn’t important enough; what they gain is more important to such individuals than the pain they cause. And when those who have been hurt inform the perpetrator how they have been hurt, and the perp will simply not accept that they have been the cause of said person’s pain and simply choose to live in a lie, fuck them. Justice please – preferably in this life, in the next if it exists and comes down to that.
People do wrong sometimes. And people do wrong when they hurt others. That not everyone is willing to acknowledge pain that they’ve been the source of, AND make the necessary amends… well, here then is the uncrossable divide between you and I. Crossable in wishing you well, but not crossable in that what you believe stinks for me.
Of course I wish you well. But that’s me and we all know you’re you.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Or even better, how about you starting your own blog and annoy people with your evasions and lies there instead.
####################################
Starting my own blog is not a part of my present research protocol.
Do you really believe in telling others about themselves without knowing the persons you are so telling? There is a name for that phenomenon…
Buddha Is Laughing 1, March 23, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Awww. You’re simply not that hard to figure out, troll. But then again, we’ve come to expect delusions of grandeur from one who has compared himself to Einstein, Hawking and Galileo.
So how about refuting the following:
I shall insert my comments using italics as here showm
Your postulate about the a value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as
1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and
You use a false dichotomy here. I shall mention only one of many alternatives, to wit, the method of Non-violent Communication of Dr. Marshall Rosenberg. Your point 1) is thus refuted.
2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.
Rosenberg’s Non-violent Communication averts the potential for such violence before it can happen when used in a timely way. Your point 2) is thus refuted.
3) Courts of some form have been an integral part of every civilization since Sumer. Courts in the adversarial mode are the form most likely to encourage justice as they are the form that most encourages equity – a necessary component of justice – by allowing all sides of a dispute to present their arguments and evidence as to how a neutral judge should rule on a given case, thus allowing all sides an impartial hearing.
The Inuit civilization, prior to the European intrusion, had no such courts. Your point 3) is thus refuted.
Do so without fallacious logic, appeals to religion, appeals to your own misplaced authority, making up a definition, distorting history or otherwise lying.
Already accomplished.
Until you can disprove those statements in a formally correct and factually honest manner?
This question? makes no sense to me, it is an isolated clause and not a sentence; however, your false claims of 1), 2), and 3) have already been refuted with verifiable facts.
You will remain completely and utterly defeated in your “work” and relegated to the depths of trollery and nuisance posting.
I have not been “defeated” in any way or manner whatsoever.
If you are half as smart as you think you are, Galileo-boy, you should at least be able to make an attempt to do so and do so cogently, logically and without material misrepresentations. Because you’re “collecting data on us”? Isn’t an answer to the challenges to your postulate. It’s simply more evasion and self-aggrandizing. What you are being is a selfish invasive pest and a prick. But as long as you persist in spreading your bullshit here? We’ll be glad to tear it down right behind you, enemy of civilization and the Constitution.
The usually well-hidden mechanisms of child abuse, rather well studied some years ago by German psychiatrist, Alice Miller, are my focal concern, and my concern includes the effects of such abuse from one generation to the next.
You sure made that easy for me, though I wonder whether you can fathom how simple and easy it was for me to demolish your claims because I am inclined to guess that you will not recognize their being demolished, no matter what I would ever do or not do.
But none of it unreasonable, raff.
Buddha,
You are asking a lot! 🙂
Or even better, how about you starting your own blog and annoy people with your evasions and lies there instead.
How about you simply refuting the challenges to your assertions.
RE: Anonymously Yours, March 23, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Brian,
If your mission and objective is to annoy, piss people off and to alienate yourself from meaningful discussion…consider your objective complete….
#########################
Posted comments such as the one of yours to which I am herewith responding are precisely the meaningful discussion for which I have been searching.
What you find meaningful, I may find meaningless; and what you find meaningless, I may find meaningful.
I am who I am and I am not a figment of the imagination of anyone else.
I am learning about the attitudes and values of people who, however unawares, abuse other people.
Surely, for anyone who, unawares, abuses other people, my work surely ought to be awfully irritating indeed.
When, however, during the typical terrible twos or infant-child transition or infant child discontinuity, those who are irritated by what I am doing were originally irritated by someone other than me.
Anyone else, other than me, really understand how the dance of transference-countertransference really works within dialogue?
There are people experiencing dastardly abuse at the behest and by the actions of some top tier folks, such as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Some such folks have asked me to sort out what can usefully be done besides playing increasingly tragedy-compounding reciprocal lame blame game silliness.
Perhaps you never carefully studied Redl and Wineman, and Fairbairn, and Szasz, and Kohut, and Breggin, and Miller, and Scaer, and Laing, and Otto, and Schmidt, and Werkmeister, and Elsasser, and several hundred more. I did.
Awww. You’re simply not that hard to figure out, troll. But then again, we’ve come to expect delusions of grandeur from one who has compared himself to Einstein, Hawking and Galileo.
So how about refuting the following:
Your postulate about the a value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as
1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and
2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.
3) Courts of some form have been an integral part of every civilization since Sumer. Courts in the adversarial mode are the form most likely to encourage justice as they are the form that most encourages equity – a necessary component of justice – by allowing all sides of a dispute to present their arguments and evidence as to how a neutral judge should rule on a given case, thus allowing all sides an impartial hearing.
Do so without fallacious logic, appeals to religion, appeals to your own misplaced authority, making up a definition, distorting history or otherwise lying.
Until you can disprove those statements in a formally correct and factually honest manner?
You will remain completely and utterly defeated in your “work” and relegated to the depths of trollery and nuisance posting.
If you are half as smart as you think you are, Galileo-boy, you should at least be able to make an attempt to do so and do so cogently, logically and without material misrepresentations. Because you’re “collecting data on us”? Isn’t an answer to the challenges to your postulate. It’s simply more evasion and self-aggrandizing. What you are being is a selfish invasive pest and a prick. But as long as you persist in spreading your bullshit here? We’ll be glad to tear it down right behind you, enemy of civilization and the Constitution.
“Neither do I attack the legal system.”
That’s funny, because every time you attack adversarial process you are attacking one third of our legal system – namely the judiciary.
And you still haven’t answered the challenge to your “work”. You’ve evaded and blathered quite a bit, but you’ve come nowhere near refuting what I’ve said about your claims. Which is par for the course when you are indeed an obfuscating troll, obfuscating troll.
Perhaps the first line of the original topic as posted by Elaine will be informative as to what has been happening regarding comments directed toward me and my work. It certainly has framed the comments sent my way for me. That first line was and is:
“Warning: You are about to enter the Twilight Zone.”
😉
Brian,
If your mission and objective is to annoy, piss people off and to alienate yourself from meaningful discussion…consider your objective complete….
RE: Anonymously Yours, March 23, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Brian, Brian, Brian….
Why do you espouse shit no one is really interested in reading…. If you want people and I think I can safely say this for some others here….get off of the tangent you are on….Hit the facts…and somehow or another tie it into the discussion… Other than that what you post has been a wasted space and few here take you seriously….if this is the attention you want…then by all means go for it…..
I wake up and wonder if you have gotten the clue….then again….maybe you can’t or won’t ever be able to understand….If the degrees are really associated with you…then my friend your education has been lost….
#####################################
Who is being obtuse or whatever?
I keep mentioning as fact that the objections people post as comments are the data I here am seeking.
You who object to my work are doing exactly as I would want you to do, were I to want anything.
Those who object to my work are demonstrating its validity through the form and content of the posted objections.
I suppose I will eventually stop pointing that out so often as I have been doing.
Is it really true that only the ones who somehow understand what I am doing and why are the only ones who know better than to respond with comments which only reinforce my research and findings?
I am beginning to wonder how long it might take, were I to continue this research effort beyond what I find to be of value, for BiL, AY, OS, and you, TonyC. to wake up and figure out what it is that I am actually doing and why it is significant as proper bioengineering research???
I figure that the ones who are able to take me seriously already know better than to play tit-for-tat with me, especially when I do not reciprocate with a tit for a tat or a tat far a tit.
However, methinks I may actually be getting better and better at sorting out why our society is as though gone amok.
The mechanism is, as I observe, being beautifully modeled here…
(beautifully is cynical 🙂 )
RE: Tony C., March 23, 2011 at 6:51 pm
@Brian: I simply do not quit in my search for someone who is willing and able to work with me to sort out whether my work really is or is not useful.
I am sure there are (and have been) plenty of people able, the fact that you cannot find anybody willing should tell you something. The people that have been able gave you an answer you were not willing to accept: Your work is not useful.
The only answer you are willing to accept is a falsehood, and since it is impossible to prove a falsehood is true, you will continue wasting your pointless life until it is gone. You could be contributing something, or contributing nothing, instead you are contributing negative information and negative value. What a completely self-centered, selfish, egotistical and uncaring person you are.
#######################################
It is not really all that surprising to me how intensively some people project their self-image onto me. There is formidable research in psychology about this, including some by a Carleton classmate of mine.
I do work with other qualified doctoral-level scientists, including one or more with a Ph.D. in psychology with whom I talk fairly regularly. None of my supportive colleagues are registered professional engineers, none did a Ph.D. dissertation which qualifies them to do the work I do the way I do it.
As I seek words I have a hunch one person may understand, someone else to whom the words were not directed often jumps in, perhaps because of finding the words offensive in some way I could not anticipate.
I have a collection of decent folks who have worked with me for many years. None of them, for cause, have the personality structure which would lead them to act as top-tier people, however, perhaps because they are simply too decent over the whole of their lives to ever allow such a tragedy to infect their decency.
There are some very decent people who worked with me in the past and who I can safely name at this time. They were all amateur radio operators. K9AVU, WB9PME, WA0JZS, WA9EWO, K0CNR are among a few.
I find it tragically sad that formal education has tended to imprison most scientists within normal science to the nearly complete exclusion of the work of dramatically new scientific paradigms, wherein surely await the most urgently useful scientific discoveries not yet tickling mainstream science and mainstream scientific interest.
People who challenge the errors of the past, when the errors are highly prized by those who derive differential benefit from the consequences of such errors, tend to experience umbrage when some silly fool challenger like me plays court-jester without hierarchical authorization.
I have a hunch that, for every person who thinks of self as “a somebody,” there are likely at least a hundred people who, rather like me, know better.
Brian, Brian, Brian….
Why do you espouse shit no one is really interested in reading…. If you want people and I think I can safely say this for some others here….get off of the tangent you are on….Hit the facts…and somehow or another tie it into the discussion… Other than that what you post has been a wasted space and few here take you seriously….if this is the attention you want…then by all means go for it…..
I wake up and wonder if you have gotten the clue….then again….maybe you can’t or won’t ever be able to understand….If the degrees are really associated with you…then my friend your education has been lost….
RE: Otteray Scribe, March 23, 2011 at 5:02 pm
BIL, from the comments, it appears that our Brian had a tough time with the courts, and if I read it correctly, something to do with custody of a grandchild following a family tragedy. It is really hard to wade through all the circumlocutions and hypergraphia, so I may have misread parts of it. We both run into this kind of blame game all the time. Blame the judges, blame the system, blame one’s own lawyer, and so on ad nauseum.
I have an attorney friend who has a needlepoint sign on his office wall, His wife made it for him. It says, in old English lettering, “The Truth Will Make You Mad.”
Brian appears to have concluded that it’s the fault of a legal system that has worked for centuries that is the cause of his personal problems. Therefore it must be scrapped for some other model that does not involve forensics. Good luck on that. I would have hated to be the lawyer trying to pin him down on either a direct or cross examination. I am sure he was his own worst enemy in any litigation with which he was involved.
###################################
You are really having a hard time with my work? I do not ever blame anything or anyone, because I long ago learned that blame is invariably a form of attribution error.
Neither do I attack the legal system. I merely describe my research and findings, and people who “believe in blame” (which I do not) will, perhaps using some sort of delusional “theory of mind” mistakenly assign their beliefs and belief errors to me.
And I was decidedly my very best friend when the adversarial system made its best attempt to date to discredit me.
Not only have I never “concluded that it’s the fault of a legal system…”; I have never concluded that there is anything ever at fault in any way whatsoever. In stark contrast with the traditional or conventional view, my understanding of denotation and the quantum-mechanical nature of existence invariably informs me that everything that happens happens in the possible way and never otherwise; therefore, there is never actually anything to blame save as an error of attribution.
Consider the following sequence: If it is hurtful, it is wrong. If no one knows that it is hurtful, it may happen because no one can anticipate it sufficiently to prevent it. If it is hurtful and it can not be prevented, it may happen so people can learn enough about it to be able to prevent it in the future. It is right to prevent harm when it is possible to do so. The only way to learn for sure what is harmful is by someone doing it. It is right to learn how to avoid doing what is harmful. It is helpful to learn what is harmful as that is the only way to learn how to prevent it. It is right to learn what is harmful in order to prevent doing it in the future. It is right to do everything harmful that is done because there is no other way to learn how to avoid future harm. Everything which happens is therefore right when it happens. There is therefore nothing ever actually wrong. There is therefore nothing at fault and no one to fault. Blame is a delusion based upon error in understanding how existence works.
Why the notion of blame? Blame is a form of attribution error, such that, after blame has happened enough times, it will become clear enough to people that blame is a delusion that people will stop blaming.
I have already learned to stop blaming. I learned it before I was born and never unlearned it.
When people inform me that I am blaming, and many have so informed me, I invariably do what I can to inform them of their error.
It is one thing to blame and another to merely describe personal experiences without invoking blame of any sort, and find other people who unlearned to not blame believing in error that I blame because “everyone does.”
The news is, however, that not everyone “blames.” I do not, and unborn fetuses are rather unlikely to blame for want of experiences with people who do blame. Blame is a process I find is replicated from adult to child via the child’s mirror neuron system before blame arrives through verbal connotation.
Weather permitting, a replacement auto-feed scanner with convert-to-.pdf software is scheduled to arrive here tomorrow. I will be scanning and converting to .pdf many pages of court documents, including briefs, affidavits, and transcripts as documentation of aspects of my field work.
Perhaps my favorite set of documents is a pair of “minor claimed traffic violation” court transcripts in which I was convicted on “clear and convincing evidence” of violating a red light in Door County which I did not violate and was so convicted without any witness testimony to the effect that I violated it. Even better is Judge Diltz allowing me to testify from the witness box without being either sworn or affirmed, thereby setting a precedent in Door County that witnesses can testify in defiance of Wisconsin Statute requiring witnesses to be either sworn or affirmed.
When, in regard to the traffic incident which led to that rather peculiar bench trial, then Sturgeon Bay City Attorney, James Downey, told me to choose between two lies he told me I had to tell, and lied to me about the relevant statute, which I had already carefully read, I decided that I was going to do some further research into the intrinsic deceptive dishonesty of the adversarial system. Once the documents have been properly scanned, converted to .pdf format, and put on one of my web sites, it will get rather interesting when I take what I have learned very public.
My research here has partly been directed toward learning about the sort of difficulties I may plausibly expect during the next major phase of my public-safety-oriented bioengineering research.
I find quite a few people wondering what on earth is happening, what with the Wisconsin governor and legislature and civil rights of state, county, and municipal workers.
Yes, I am a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Union, AFL-CIO. And I am decidedly pro-Union.
The Wisconsin governor and legislature appear to me to have become profoundly pro-(dis-union) and I find that the governor and legislature are severely dissing me and my colleagues.
Buddha Is Laughing and Otteray Scribe (in particular among those who comment here), you have given me a marvelous additional repertoire of tools with which to be more effectively pro-Union.
I really thank you for your help, even though you may not have yet realized how very helpful you were being in promoting my research and its findings.
And you think I am not good at what I do? A surprise is in waiting. When I deem the time to be proper.
Were there a joke to my work instead of a tragedy, the joke, even then, would not be on you or on me.
@Brian: I simply do not quit in my search for someone who is willing and able to work with me to sort out whether my work really is or is not useful.
I am sure there are (and have been) plenty of people able, the fact that you cannot find anybody willing should tell you something. The people that have been able gave you an answer you were not willing to accept: Your work is not useful.
The only answer you are willing to accept is a falsehood, and since it is impossible to prove a falsehood is true, you will continue wasting your pointless life until it is gone. You could be contributing something, or contributing nothing, instead you are contributing negative information and negative value. What a completely self-centered, selfish, egotistical and uncaring person you are.
@Mike S: Ha! Hadn’t heard that one (schnorer). I’ve known a few. Heck, on the (now defunct) series Two and a Half Men, Alan (one of the brothers) is a perfect schnorer.
RE: Otteray Scribe, March 23, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Brian sez:
“What is a proper descriptor for someone obviously not qualified who takes on the work of a professional engineer doing very original scientific research? The best word I can yet find to describe Otteray Scribe is, “traumatized.””
***************************************
Logic does not appear to be your strong point, Sport. First, you comment that I am not qualified to take on the work of a trained engineer. In what area? You keep referring to your research into human behavior and the legal system. Being a trained engineer has squat to do with either of those areas. Want to do a stress analysis on an I-beam? That’s fine because that is engineering work. But to attack the legal system and the adversary trial system on which it is based puts you into the role of an ordinary layman. Your engineering background is worth jack shit in that regard and your opinion and belief is no better than that of my barber. As for your trying to do some kind of behavior “research? Exactly how is your training in building bridges better in this area than mine, since I spent thirteen years of my life in university studying the subject.
AS BIL says, you have opinion and speculation. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with your repeated assertion about being a licensed engineer. Once you step across the threshold into another professional’s specialty, you are not an engineer any more–you are a layman.
#######################################
Ignorance once again drives itself into the light of day!
When it comes to the study of the structures of human society from a public safety standpoint as a valid exercise of a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer having a Ph.D. in bioengineering with a doctorate titled, “Mental Health and Mental Illness: Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention; A Bioengineering Perspective,” and when said bioengineer observes with all due diligence that the Adversarial Principle is the ultimate root cause of all forms of mental illness, then the news is that said bioengineer is genuinely working within the engineer’s areas of professional competence in studying how the
Adversarial Principle, as ensconced within the Anglo-American System of Adversarial Law and Jurisprudence leads to child abuse and resulting trauma and mental illness.
Otteray Scribe: Your claim, “Being a trained engineer has squat to do with either of those areas.” is absolutely false. My doctorate is in Bioengineering and my doctoral dissertation is titled, “Mental Health and Mental Illness: Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention; A Bioengineering Perspective,” and I find as a Bioengineer who is a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, working in my area(s) of established professional competence, that the effect of indoctrinating children, typically at around 18 months of age, into believing that the child made a mistake the child could have avoided is brain-damaging-trauma child abuse which results in children who are successfully coerced into this form of deception becoming deceived in ways that often result in subsequent violent human destructiveness and dishonesty.
Otteray Scribe: Your claim, “But to attack the legal system and the adversary trial system on which it is based puts you into the role of an ordinary layman. Your engineering background is worth jack shit in that regard and your opinion and belief is no better than that of my barber.” is absolutely false.
From Wisconsin Statute 0443:
(6) “Practice of professional engineering” includes any professional service requiring the application of engineering principles and data, in which the public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health or property is concerned and involved, such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, or responsible supervision of construction, alteration, or operation, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, projects, bridges, plants and buildings, machines, equipment, processes and works. A person offers to practice professional engineering if the person by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way represents himself or herself to be a professional
engineer; or who through the use of some other title implies
that he or she is a professional engineer; or who holds himself or herself out as able to practice professional engineering.
(7) “Professional engineer” means a person who by reason of his or her knowledge of mathematics, the physical sciences and the principles of engineering, acquired by professional education and practical experience, is qualified to engage in engineering practice as defined in sub. (6).”
Biophysics is a sub-branch of physics, and I established my competence in the relevant areas of biophysics in 1997-8 through the successful peer review of my doctoral dissertation and the granting of my Doctor of Philosopby in Bioengineering degree by the University of Illinois at Chicago and by meeting the requirements for becoming a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer.
I am a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers, and have “run the nature of my work” past Arthur Schwartz, Esq., the General Counsel of the National Society of Professional Engineers as part of my validating the legitimacy of my bioengineering work as properly of the practice of Professional Engineering.
I did “my homework” before going public with my research methods and findings. Because I live in Wisconsin, I ran the nature of my work past a qualified Professional Engineer on the faculty of the Milwaukee School of Engineering. Because my work includes scientific psychology at a rather high level, I am a member of the Association for Psychological Science.
With apologies to Gene Roddenberry, I am an engineer who goes boldly where no engineer has gone before! Therefore, it is dishonest to compare me with engineers who are not going boldly where I am going and going with me as I go.
Were the viewpoints I believe you, Otteray Scribe, and also Buddha Is Laughing, promoting even slightly valid, my reading of Wisconsin Statutes and Regulations informs me that I need to be put through the complaint procedures of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing for being in exceptional violation of the requirements of my Professional Engineer license.
If you really believe that what I am doing is not proper professional engineering for a professional engineer having the bioengineering doctorate I have, simply file a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. The complaint form is readily to be found on the Internet web site of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing.
If you are not willing to file such a complaint, perhaps you do not really believe the comments you have been posting regarding my findings regarding The Adversarial System and The Public Safety.
Are you “too chicken” to file a complaint and learn the truth about my work as a replacement for your misunderstandings of it?
As you, Otteray Scribe, are a capable researcher, you will have no difficulty finding and filling out and submitting the proper complaint form with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Are you prepared for the adventure which would follow your submitting such a complaint form? I am ready.
I had learned how to stand up to bullying long before kindergarten.
I continue to have a very serious legal theory concern, one no one who I have observed posting comments on this blawg has had the apparent competence to properly address.
Yet hope springs eternal. So, I simply do not quit in my search for someone who is willing and able to work with me to sort out whether my work really is or is not useful. Name-calling does not decide that issue worth a whit.