Coyne and Michael Sharpe on Twitter

I do sometimes wish I tweeted.

'I see no ships'.
'Absolutely no Russian collusion here, absolutely, absolutely hugely nothing'.
'What fatal flaws are these?'

It might even go down in history.

 

I'm sure there are many people with ME who wish you would take up tweeting too.

 

It's very easy, why not give it a try! You only see the posts of people you choose to follow, you don't have to read any of the crap that pollutes the twittersphere unless you seek it out. I rather enjoy the discipline of confining my occasional tweets to the permitted length.

 

Please do.

 

Just checked out Sharpe's twitter feed, and saw he followed up with this RT:



What is that boy playing at?!

 

All I can say to his tweet is: Word

 

Two men say they're Jesus
One of them must be wrong

 

Projection?

 

Why? Lots of people are called Jesus, it's a thing.

In the UK alone in 2016 6 babies were named Jesus, it was was 3079th most popular baby name

 

Textbook.

 

Whats so weird is if he is an acclaimed psychiatrist does he think this is a way to address a patient population. Its basic egotistical taunting. Some psychiatrist!

Where are the journalists talking about his cyberstalking?

 

Well, there's always someone who doesn't see the paradigm shift coming.

 

Another Michael-Sharpean Nietzsche quote: "Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things"

 

retweeted by Sharpe:


clearly he didn't read it all:
"
Distinguish trolls from critics

It is also worth pointing out that while you should be on the lookout for disruptive trolls that attempt to provoke or criticize you unfairly, not all forms of criticism qualifies as trolling. There appears to be an increasing trend of dismissing critics as “trolls” because the arguments they bring up are difficult to respond to. Similarly, another popular trend is to portray critics as trolls by posting screenshots of a handful of troll comments and pretending they are representative of the entire population of critics. This is deeply dishonest tactic and should be avoided."

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/06/16/scientific-skepticism-and-internet-trolls/

 

Maybe that clarification should be added after his tweet, and then the conversation snippet captured before he maybe deletes his tweet, or tries to accuse the person posting it of being a troll?

 

Sharpe linking to that site was probably a result of this article, which briefly mentioned PACE in a discussion about antipsychiatry/criticism of of psychiatry:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/01/23/mailbag-anti-psychiatry-fallacies-and-falsehoods/

To me it seemed that the discussion (which continued briefly in the now closed comments) glossed over the interesting details and was pretty empty and driven by prior ideological assumptions.

Still, cheering to see PACE being casually used as an example of science getting it wrong, even if they didn't go into all the details (and seemed to assume 'among the first' critics of PACE started in 2015!).

 

does anyone know where that graph that Anton Meyer tweeted, came from? I'd love to print it out (inc the references) & use it to give to a HP i know