"older drinkers"

[Conrad]

Psychologists only wish they were scientists!

I do wonder if I should track down the original study on this one as the reporting is very confused.

A group of experts from the Royal College of Psychiatrists says there is a growing problem with substance abuse among older people, who they describe as society's "invisible addicts".

It makes for great rhetoric, but if someone is an addict there is NO safe limit, kind of makes the whole article a little washy for me, as it makes no sense to discuss addicts in the same breath as health limits.

[arwkrite]

Experts are worse than Scientists and Physcomollollogists Er type Thingys because they cannot keep their opinions to themselves. Always bashing on about how things are bad for you. That is unless they are going on about things that are good for you like vegetables , roughage and regular exercise. Enough of that sort of talk.
More beer please. I need the distraction

[Spinko]

Experts are worse than Scientists and Physcomollollogists Er type Thingys because they cannot keep their opinions to themselves. Always bashing on about how things are bad for you. That is unless they are going on about things that are good for you like vegetables , roughage and regular exercise. Enough of that sort of talk.
More beer please. I need the distraction

Totally agree. We hear one thing from one "expert", and then a week later, another thing from another "expert".

The impression I get from the BBC is that they do not want us to think for ourselvers any more. Just rely on threse self-proclaimed experts. That's fine.

So long as the experts are truly so. But usually what happens, as we have seen with scientists in the medicines and climate sciences, is that scientists end up becoming Vested Interests and supporting their own ideologies rather than the scientific method.

Both climate science and medicine science have been corrupted horrendously by the billions pouring in, with a pre-determined conclusion needed.

Science is as good as democracy. It relies on the knowledge of those guarding it. Recently however the guardians have become very complacent.

[Farway]

[QUOTE=gillhalfpint;34152]

If starting a thread wouldn't it be a good idea to quote a few lines? I knew what this was referring to having read the article but usually when the original post is just a link I'll skip it by.

Must admit I skip the links and often wish a few lines gave the gist of what it is about. Takes me too long to open the links and I lack the patience. Sorry.

Well that makes three of us, I just skip links that have no clue as to content

A few lines copied & pasted in quotes or italics would help me decide if I want to follow the link

[Blackthorn]

[QUOTE=Farway;34161]

Well that makes three of us

Four of us!

[Conrad]

If starting a thread wouldn't it be a good idea to quote a few lines? I knew what this was referring to having read the article but usually when the original post is just a link I'll skip it by.

Copyright isn't that strict.

Must admit I skip the links and often wish a few lines gave the gist of what it is about. Takes me too long to open the links and I lack the patience. Sorry.

Well that makes three of us, I just skip links that have no clue as to content

A few lines copied & pasted in quotes or italics would help me decide if I want to follow the link

Four of us!

There is a certain irony in complaining about lack of description in links by posting "Four of us!", I think the point was made fine by Spinko (and it is a valid one to be made), but this is degenerating into a forum lynching.

I am grateful that (the elusive) hondo takes the time to post on the forum, it is not like we are so deluged on here that someone taking the time to post information they think we might be interested in harms us, it is more than fine to ignore it if it is not your cup of tea, but judging by the amount of replies his posts earn then it is not completely lost on the forum.

[ETA]

...and supporting their paymasters' ideologies rather than the scientific method...

.

Suggested amendment for you, Spinko. And you're absolutely right about both the weakness of trust in "The Scientific Method" and the appalling way the BBC uses tax payers' money to put across a poorly argued case.

[Blackthorn]

Apologies, it was not meant to be a lynching. I was just agreeing with several other posters that I find a link on it's own less than useful - whilst you're right that Spinko did make this point, if nobody else had agreed with him then we might assume that was just Spinko's point of view and nobody else shared it.

Personally I think it's ok for several other people to voice their agreement. That way, perhaps anyone who is tempted to just post a link, may be encouraged to add a few extra words to go along with it.

[Conrad]

Personally I think it's ok for several other people to voice their agreement. That way, perhaps anyone who is tempted to just post a link, may be encouraged to add a few extra words to go along with it.

Or discouraged from posting at all. If you want to encourage people try being encouraging, it is a revolutionary concept I know. If I tell you all your area corrections on the main site are shit does it encourage you to do more?

I know how appreciated I would feel looking down a sequence of posts saying 'I can't be bothered to read your efforts because you can't be bothered to write an explanation.' Gill was the only one who was polite in the observation. Continous 'me too' posts are just insulting as far as I am concerned.

[aleandhearty]

I am grateful that (the elusive) hondo takes the time to post on the forum.... but judging by the amount of replies his posts earn then it is not completely lost on the forum.

Couldn't agree more. I tend to open any link posted by our very own Scarlet Pimpernel of the boards, because I know it's almost certainly worth reading. I don't think an introduction would make a big difference to me.