Hi Cort,

I'll snip what I won't comment:

Quote Originally Posted by Cort View Post

thankfully in this case, you're not. Bob has been very critical of LP, to my mind, is bending over backwards to be fair - and does not deserve to be accused of 'trolling for LP"

The question is can we have a decent respectful conversation about this that leave's everybody mostly unbruised...I guess not!

I think Bob has been "bending over backwards to be fair " FAR more than rational scientific argument warrants and I don't think he is qualified to argue this - but if you say: OK, in this ME/CS-community lets all argue allover the place, talents or not, qualifications or not, rational or not, scientific or not... well, then that's how it is to be, Cort, and Bob and others are just as good as anybody for anything, and should be respectfully regarded thus, with great honesty also, and deferred to as experts because they say so.

O yes, and let's also, before we forget, "respectfully" define all such talk of personal qualifications as... disrespectful, meanwhile accusing anybody who questions this as unfair. That's the spirit! Gotta be respectful!

Personally, that is not my preferred way to deal with real pros, as Simon Wessely and co. and Phil Park and mates, certainly are, on a public site that's meant to further the interests of persons with ME/CFS, but then I am just not one of your average "everybody is equal" "all is fair if respectful", and "discussion of personal qualifications are disrespectful": "anybody is qualified to de-mo-cra-ti-cal-ly discuss anything anywhich way" sort of guys. Sorry... got the degrees and personal history to prove it also, but I suppose that is again disrespectful in the eyes of some.

And sure... I have spend over 2 decades in po-mo-land, and shouldn't really be amazed.

Anyway, as I told you also in EM and PM you still mostly didn't answer, I think the causes of me and ME are better served if I write more for my site and less for this, and here talk only or mostly with friends, while posting a reference or two, for those who want to know what a person like me thinks and writes, without moderation, about me and ME, and on his own large site...


...yes, I am also sorry, but in the end I have just so little energy and so much pain, and it is this or that, not both. (Also, I really have better things to do than discuss with just any people who can't argue, don't know relevant science, and just act offended if I say talent and knowledge matter... but I have been there too, for over two decades...)

I better write as I please on my site, and be a sort of benevolent commentator on this, just as I have benevolently but critically commented - Bob may be surprised to learn, of someone as disrespectful as I am - some 20 important philosophical classics, yea even while not always sparing the persons of the writers...

For what its worth I'm not surprised that these types of things can be helpful for some people...My sense is that my system overreacts to everything. For instance I sometimes notice that a negative thought about anything - not necessarily my body or CFS - causes my system to rear up and for me to unconciously hold my breath ,for my muscles to tighten up, etc. - its an unconcious physiological response which exacerbates my symptoms.

I am somewhat surprised, if you talk of LP etc. - what you seem to miss (is it the EST, perhaps, that primed you this way, Cort?!) is that wishful thinking, self-deception, brainwashing, and suggestions WORK in influencing people. But it is not science - or if it is science, then it is the pseudo-science of conmanship, practised successfully for at least 2500 years in medical and related fields, presently taught at KCL and elsewhere e.g. in Nijmegen.

O...what "is" a negative thought, to start with? Presumably, something with a disliked affective component. Supposing that, my personal report is that I do not have that, but indeed quite a few people with ME/CFS seem to have similar complaints.

The reason to write this out is mostly to remark is that, in my opinion, it is rather good evidence for the old WHO hypothesis about ME/CFS as a neurological disease and also that, again, it seems not unreasonable to try to relate this to bloodflow or oxygen-content.

This might also explain the multihood of neurological symptoms, such as my currently hesitant left leg - a problem of gait I incidentally first learned about from professor Hooper's fine texts, surely a qualified specialist, by the way, in passing, and next found confirmed in quite a few members on the forums.

Anyway... THAT's what the forums have turned out best for: Exchanging information about ME/CFS by people with ME/CFS.

And it does this VERY well indeed, and I much hope it will grow and prosper.

As an advocacy-site, sofar, other sites do better, if I may humbly say so, duly respectful also. And there are some fine sites about LP too, whereto local experts may transport their talent and willingness to argue, rather like I will transport most of mine to mine.

Best wishes,


P.S. There'll be more about this and related questions - "Whither PR, whither ME/CFS advocacy" - on my site, where the editor also is almost as excellent as the company; where the moderation is of unique quality; and where such a one as I can write "As I please" to the best of his abilities, instead of regularly having to respectfully be respectful about things I cannot really respect, though I can understand, by academic training, ripe old age, and a still not quite dimmed intellect, what's it all about.

Anyway, FWIW: I am with Orla, Oerganix and Suzy on LP, and rational people just don't treat scams that involve brainwashing of people "bend over backwards" as if, somehow, somewhere, there might be things to be said for it. There is not, or not more than for Maoism or Scientology, to which it indeed is kin.

But it seems pointless for me to argue that here, being merely someone with the requisite academic degrees to do so, and also with a large site where he can do it without being called to "reason" by calls for "respect" for just anything that deserves a horselaugh, satire, sarcasm, contempt and derision.

Not really allowed on this site but a speciality on my site

O, and it is a "HOT" site for philosophy, at least according to some Dutch sites people turn to so as to find things out about the internet...and boy, have I been disrespectful in that respect! Up to removal just before my M.A. philosophy! The ONLY person thus to be disrespected since WW II!

Here are the disrespectful reasons why, publicly declaimed by me in the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Amsterdam, duly removed afterward for my tremendous disrespect:


It's a shame how disrespectfully I treated all these - 16 at least - professors and doctors of philosophy! That's not the sign of a serious mind, as Bob told me privately meanhwile in his mail titled - of course! - Respect

If you personally attack someone just because you disagree with their point of view, then you immediately lose the argument.


Thank you, Bob! So respectful! So logical also! Thus it always has been, from Juvenalis to Swift, from Butler to Hazlitt, from Multatuli to me... RESPECT your opponent, and you'll be famous for it, and argument will be MOST fruitful, decent, respectful and - of course - fully appropriate AND Politically Correct, even for the smallest minds:


Bob, this awful Jonathan BADLY needs RESPECTFUL chastisement, being so DISRESPECTFUL about people in general. And a Minister of the Anglican Church! Shameful, shameful, shameful... that's NOT the way WE, at PR, treat people!

Ah well...just got PM by A Highly Regarded Member Of This Site that I am not the only one! Phew!!