General Chat

But here's a funny story.

Someone I met on the net and later in person is a scientist in the US (she became a forensic toxicologist, and did her postgraduate work on the effects of drug use by pregnant women on their children after birth, actually).

She'd heard the tales about "brain waves" being detected in 7-week fetuses ... so she did an experiment. She attached electrodes to some lime-green jello ... and got exactly the same "brain waves".

I gather that various people have done that same experiment, and she likely did it after reading of the others.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/80635

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

LOL Maggie when I had my 2 children...now 35 and 30...my GP told me to drink Mackesons and it never did them any harm either!!

BTW Janey...just for the record I have been a member for 5 years and this is first time I have ever deleted a posting. It is also the first time I have ever felt undermined when adding to a thread and hopefully my last!

I'm sorry, Janey, I must take issue. You ask:

“MY academic qualifications aren't really in issue here, are they? Have I suggested that yours are, or Len's are, or anyone else's are? Why do you ask about mine?"

I ask about yours because every thread you reply to, you come out with the alleged 'true academic response'.
You reply to Len:

"And I still really really don't know what point you were attempting to make."

Why should he be trying to make a point - Len was quoting an interesting article he had read, not submitting an academic article for you, or anyone to critique. The odd comment for or against would be okay - not a barrage of 'I beleive I'm more academic than you - see my sources' - you are on a genealogy site not a University site.

You also said:

"There is so much anti-intellectualism in the world ... and especially around here ..."

Which could lead some to believe you thought you were of some sort of 'higher' intellectualism to those who had either started the thread or replied to it.

I, in particular am very aware that you can be extremely intelligent without having academic qualifications - but I am also very aware that shooting your mouth off - and in the process continually putting other people down - which you have done to every response to this thread - will eventualy lead to the ultimate question.

What gives you the right to declare everyone else is wrong?'

Hence my question.

I presume you know your sources are prime sources and correct from personal experience and first hand knowledge - or are they off the internet?

Confession time Linda -
The doctor never told me to take Mackesons with the second - so I chose Baileys!! (tastes sooo much better!)
Obviously a much more 'academic' drink as my youngest has a degree!! LOL

LOLOL Maggie...

This really is just sad.


You reply to Len:

"And I still really really don't know what point you were attempting to make."

Why should he be trying to make a point - Len was quoting an interesting article he had read, not submitting an academic article for you, or anyone to critique.



My reply was not to the article with which this thread started, and you know that every bit as well as I do. Not least because I have already spelled it out once, for anyone who genuinely didn't grasp it.

When I said "And I still really really don't know what point you were attempting to make", it was IN REFERENCE TO SOMETHING. And again, forgive my capitalizing for emphasis. I'd use boldface if it were available.

I would not have thought it necessary to clarify this at all, since the sequence really is perfectly obvious.

I started that post by saying: "Len, if I knew what point you were attempting to make, obviously to me, I might know what you were expecting me to say."

That statement by me followed IMMEDIATELY on the two posts in which Len quoted something completely different from the article with which he started the thread. It had NOTHING TO DO with the first article.

I addressed some aspects of the article in his two lengthy posts, and then said: "And I still really really don't know what point you were attempting to make". That is, it was difficult for me to respond to a couple of huge blocks of quoted text offered with no commentary and no indication of why they were posted, and although I'd commented on that text, I didn't know what I was supposed to be responding to.


What joy do some people get out of contributing nothing to a discussion but irrelevancies and misrepresentations and personal attacks?

If anyone wants to discuss some substantive aspect of something under discussion in this thread, why not DO IT?


Let's try this bit:

“MY academic qualifications aren't really in issue here, are they? Have I suggested that yours are, or Len's are, or anyone else's are? Why do you ask about mine?"

I ask about yours because every thread you reply to, you come out with the alleged 'true academic response'.


Do you want to quote me saying "true academic response" in relation to something, or do you want to retract that misrepresentation?

Why can't you just respond to something I HAVE SAID, instead of making up garbage and pretending I have said it?

What I come up with is what I actually did say:

***credible, honest, sound research***

Why don't you try responding to what I DID SAY? That the "article" partially reproduced by Len - again, the two big blocks of text after the opening post - is written by a self-serving quack? I have offered the evidence of that. That the article is published by an organization that spends its time "studying" pre-birth memories and such obvious nonsense. That the author of the article lied about what was said by the genuine researchers he quoted.

Why don't you try responding to that?

If you can't, why don't you just leave it be? Why do you think that attacking ME with false claims is a response to what I have said?



"you are on a genealogy site not a University site."

I don't care where I am. If this is a genealogy site and not a university site, then let's stick to genealogy, 'k?

If someone CHOOSES to introduce a topic of discussion on a website of which I am a member, I will feel quite free to discuss it. And I will not sit by and allow silliness or ignorance, be it innocent or wilful, to pass unchallenged when there are serious matters at stake. And there are serious matters at stake here. I was not born yesterday, and did not just fall off a turnip truck. I know what claymation fetus movies are about, and what they are used for, just for instance.

It's just a crying shame that so many here think that personal attacks constitute discussion of an issue.

Janey...I cannot let this pass..

Quote...It's just a crying shame that so many here think that personal attacks constitute discussion of an issue

Does that imply in your estimation to your brief reply to my deleted posting re family traits etc as a personal attack...because it certainly does in mine.

If you want something you say to be a subject of discussion, LindaB, I strongly suggest you not delete it.

You're kind of free to characterize what I said however you want now, aren't you? Since nobody can see what it was in response to.

I have no intention of talking about my response to something you chose to delete, ta.

Forgive my piecemeal replies. I'm having to do this between jobs of work.


Maggie:

"There is so much anti-intellectualism in the world ... and especially around here ..."

Which could lead some to believe you thought you were of some sort of 'higher' intellectualism to those who had either started the thread or replied to it.


I suppose it could lead someone to believe that if they didn't know the meaning of "anti-intellectualism".

Or if they chose to claim that they thought I was using the term as a way of referring to myself somehow. Of course, there would be no basis for such a claim, and it wouldn't even make sense.


You'll forgive my using a source that is accessible to everyone, I'm sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

"Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science."

"In public discourse, Anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against élitists and academic élitism — proposing that educated people are a social group detached from the quotidian concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education."


Now, tell me you don't see that all over this forum.

Contempt for education and educated people. All. Over. This. Forum.

Doesn't really matter -- everybody can have contempt for whomever they choose, of course.

But it manifests in attacks on persons rather than challenges to ideas, doesn't it?



Maggie, you queried my academic qualifications, and offered this explanation for your query:

I, in particular am very aware that you can be extremely intelligent without having academic qualifications - but I am also very aware that shooting your mouth off - and in the process continually putting other people down - which you have done to every response to this thread - will eventualy lead to the ultimate question.

What gives you the right to declare everyone else is wrong?'

Hence my question.



The thing here is, you are once again setting up a straw person to knock down, and pretending that the straw person is me.

I have not declared anyone else wrong. I have offered evidence to refute nonsense.

That has precisely zip all to do with who is right and who is wrong.

So whether I have a "right" to declare anyone wrong is a question that arises out of nothing said in this discussion. So your query of my academic qualifications, and attempt to depict my presentation of facts and refutations of nonsense as personal attacks, stands as the personal attack it was.

Interesting how the reality is completely opposite to your portrayal of it, hm?

I happen to have two degrees plus other course work, plus 30 years of professional experience in a field that *requires* me to have a broad knowledge of just about every field of endeavour outside the hard sciences and math: sociology, psychology, political science, economics, even statistical methods.

I also have over a decade of experience in dealing with anti-choice fanatics on the internet. Like I said, no turnip trucks in my vicinity.

Okay, me demonstrating my own stupidity. The post I put here was intended for a TTF thread that I've been working on in the adjoining tab ...

insisting that babies be called fetuses dehumanises them

and if they are not human it is so much easier to kill them

womens free choice?

what choice do the babies have?

Dear Janey.......

Could you please tell us which degrees you have and at which uni you studied as my son and I are wetting ourselves at this stuff you are telling us ....we would love to know which uni is this far behind in their research...and Thank goodness to my sons uni that they are researching this very subject in great detail.


Mary , yes its a shame that life is taken coz they dont have enough contact between brain and thort!!!

she has a law degree- nuff said

The hectoring style of JaneyC is reminiscent of that of KathyB and EavieBeavie who once graced(?) these boards. Is there a connection, one wonders? What happened to them?

Another thought: the bullying, "in your face" demeanour leads one to wonder about the gender of the author. This sort of aggressive, confrontational approach is normally more often found in a certain type of man.

I doubt that I could ever be accused of this?

"Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science."

I haven't read all of this, I have flu and I am not in an 'intellectual' mood, I am in a 'huddle under blanket' mood :)

But I do know this, my son , pre birth ( still 'my son' make what you will of that I don't give a stuff :)) ) responded to music , Irish to be specific played on cassette on walkman on my tummy...sent him off to 'sleep' without fail ( he was a prodigious kicker ) . Did he come out with an Irish accent, no ( well it was instrumental actually, but he didn't wail like Uillean pipes either lol) nor did he cry in my 'native language' or with my inflections... but then he didn't cry much at all :))

My point , such as there is one , is...does it matter? Anyone who has had a baby, knows what reactions or lack of them you get...It doesn't NEED a scientist to tell you that, and I certainly think it is about time they stopped wasting money rersearching things that are of no relevance to anyone. Like wise the use of the words 'foetus' 'unborn baby'..... it either IS or isn't and no one from either 'camp' will shift one millimetre towards the other opinion because of what they read here.

Science/ logic .... instinct/ feeling/ ....just words.....

Stand on just one 'side' of that divide and you are a fool , take the best of both and filter it through your own common sense, and 'humanity' and you might come somewhere close to a state of 'understanding' :)

PS just a word re 'academics'... If one academic historian says the English civil war was down to the 'rise' of the gentry, and another says it was down to the 'fall' of the gentry.... and both are argued equally well...there is only one option...think for yourself :) I can recommend it ...that way you get everyone's back up..but have the absolute certainty that 'you' are right ;)

Well, folks, we had a saying back in Latin class. Or was it law school?

Res ipsa loquitur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4

But no, a reply to the personal attack by Len of the Chilterns is in order.

There never was a KathyB. I have never concealed the fact that I used the name assigned to me by this system and then changed it because the system violated my privacy (as it does everyone's) by revealing my identity. Anyone who claims not to know this ... well, res ipsa loquitur. Anyone who feels compelled to keep violating another person's privacy in an effort to attack someone who disagrees with them .... well, the word bully does come to mind.

Speculating about someone's identity is just, well, a personal attack. The sort of thing engaged in by someone who has nothing to say worth saying. How do you feel about the fact that the "article" you quoted at length here was written by a lying quack, Len? No comment?

As far as insulting a woman by calling her a man ... well, once again, the thing just speaks for itself, don't it? But hey, Len, your low opinion of men, gosh, maybe you should get help with that.


And Mary? I did say I hadn't fallen off any turnip trucks lately. But thanks for spelling out the vile anti-woman agenda of the militant anti-choice brigade!

Len could I ask if you are still there !!!???

If children per-birth get a tone of conversation do you think its easier for children to speak two or more languages after birth if the mother speaks them at the time of pregnancy................

and therefore I wonder which language gives the unborn child the most sounds therefore making it easy to learn the most languages.............

I have just read this (sorry to interrupt.... I have other things to say about this thread, but thought I'd better start reading the links so kindly added (thank you Janey!!))

Well... I have read one so far, and have never read such a load of unmitigated, unscientific psychic claptrap in all my life!!

If this is being cited as scientific proof... well!! Words almost fail me....

I will c & p what I have written so far (before I went back and started to read the links).......

"" I have read this through... briefly the first time, a little more carefully the second.

I don't normally join in debates... I am not a good debater, as I have a tendency to personalise the subject, and that does not make for good debating, lol

I have, however, made a couple of observations about this one....... and they are quite noticeable.

One is that debating is about taking a subject, and, using words, present arguments for or against, proving or disproving that statement... or even ending up with an open verdict, in an objective and reasoned manner. It is about researching and finding viable proofs for (or against) and presenting those facts to other debaters... if one wishes to debate about feelings, then a whole new thread should be required!! They are not really objective, are they, feelings, lol!!

Two is that the debate is about the subject, and not about the person or people who are debating that subject. Not about their qualifications, education or lack of, or motive, or personality, intelligence or otherwise.

Now, I find nowhere does Janey direct any ridicule at the people behind the words, statements and c & p'ing of articles... she has directed evidence to suggest that some of the research being used as above, to validate an argument was based on untruth, and out and out lie, where information was misused by the author to misdirect and back up their own *feelings* and was not scientifically correct nor validated (nb, not the author of any post or thread here, I hasten to add, but it is being used as an evidence, and is based on incorrect information, so is therefore invalid as a scientific research proof) She has also been able to point folk to research and information to support her own theory and belief. For that I respect her, but can quite understand if she does then retaliate in a more personal way

However... she has been attacked, her credentials been questioned, as has her intelligence and her education... which actually, are not of any significance to the subject matter of the thread title or OP. And really not anyone elses business... her credentials are just as valid as yours or mine!

It does seem that she has been attacked in a way that is not very *debate-correct*... Please, if folk are going to disagree in a subject open to debate... then make sure that it is the subject matter that is debated, not the other debaters. """"

Well.... now I know that Janey is being attacked because it is Janey.... there are some serious issues I would be taking up with the authors of this information that Len is citing... and it isn't made clear that it is all based on supposition, not a single sentence of controlled scientific research went into it! It does not, for me, make interesting reading... I find it scary that some people are taking it seriously... For me there are undertones here, of something that I find hard to put into words.... I have no proof, just a *feeling*

But I think the bits of the book I have read are subversive, they are not based on scientific fact but on anecdotal evidence - and dodgy anecdotal evidence at that! - I mean, would YOU listen to a blue shining light that appeared every month to let you know that you should go get yourself pregnant? No? Me neither, lol

I wonder what the book has to say about a woman's right to have a termination? It already implies that a developing fetus reacts badly (anecdotaly) to the amniocentethis needle?

No, Len, you come across as a lovely man, usually but in this instance, I find the article/book/whatever you are quoting to be more than a little disturbing. And your attack on Janey, a little worrying, as she has merely debunked the bunkum you posted.

I also worry about those people who do not have the courage of their convictions, and delete their posts with no explanation, whilst the, erm, debate is still in progress. Oh, and I am NOT debating..... as I said, I am not very good at it....

Oh.. one other thing.. minor, but relevent (sp) water does carry sound, but distorts it... one of my sons had a hearing impairment as a small child, and I was told to immerse my head and ears under water and get someone to chat to me, normally........ try it!!

So... thank you Janey, for showing where I, as an intelligent woman, could read this source for myself, form my own opinion... and also provide alternate, scientifically researched articles which balance and point to a slightly different viewpoint.

Love

Daff xxxx

And thank you, Daff, for making me giggle.

Not that the whole rest of the thread didn't, too. ;)

And not that everything you said shouldn't be taken seriously! Although maybe not until you send certified copies of your credentials by email to everybody involved ... and of course your birth certificate, so we know exactly what sex you are!


But on a serious note - yes, you're very right, there is a scary undertone.

The wiki article on anti-intellectualism is a little odd, with a kind of curious POV, but it does make one thing clear. Anti-intellectualism is the universal tool of rightwing political movements and governments, which exploit "the people's" suspicion of people who are different and ideas they don't understand. How much better the world would be if people would open their minds rather than closing them.