Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS tryto overtake her

On 18:31 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 6:25:12 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 17:50 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:12:53 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 16:37 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 12:10:36 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:34 1 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 11:23:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
joined the club.

Do you have tattoo, Simon?

Nope, no way - in Hull they are a symbol of feral scum and I
don't have a mobile fern either.


No mobile is unusual. You have posted pictures which show you
like technology and gadgets, so I would have assumed you would be
a fan of smartphones.

They are useless at a lot of things including being a reliable
telephone. I prefer to use the correct tool for the job.

What if you're out cycling and want to call someone?

It's never happened yet, but I do have a Garmin Edge 1000 for finding
my way home.

As I understand it from your posts, cyclists are getting knocked off
their bikes all the time by motorists. If it happens to you in the
countryside, you might find a phone useful.

Especially are you're more likely than average to sustain head injuries
from not wearing a helmet.

The only time I have been knocked off my bike by a car driver, he rang
the emergency services himself and I didn't hit my head. His insurance
gave me £5000 in compo as well.

Luckily for you that the driver helped out. On the other hand, if you got
kicked off your bike by a motor bike rider, as you sometimes post about, I
doubt such a rider would be making a phone call on your behalf. Just a
thought.

PS: What does the amount of the insurance payout have to do with not
having a smartphone or not waering a helmet?

On 20:49 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 17:27 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:


Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the tattoo
correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on our
mental health they would have to say something like: 'the survey-based
study also found that having tattoos was significantly related to
overall health status'.

The direction of causation is as follows: someone on account of their
"delicate" mental state makes a decision to have themself extensively
tattooed.

The correlation occurs from this. You seem to have reversed the
direction of causation although the article explained it and Nugent was
able to grasp the meaning easily enough.

Are you really making an issue of that? So someone who has a delicate
state of mind has to have that before they get the tattoos. Someone who
gets the tattoos first may not have a delicate state of mind but may
develop a delicate state of mind later. Ultimately, you always end up
with someone who has tattoos and may or may not have a delicate state of
mind. Is there some advantage for me to gain by 'wilfully' reversing a
direction of causation, where applicable?

You're getting muddled once again. One can't say the direction of
causality is irrelevant. The direction of causality is important to the
discussion. Perhaps you are trying to develop an alternative Bayes
Theorem from scratch but finding it rather heavy going. Why can't you
accept research findings instead of scrabbling around trying to raise
increasingly obscure "Yes buts".

[SNIP]

You created a hypothetical example (of berating the fallen cyclist) and
made it part of what you were assessing for reasonableness, even though
this activity had never appeared anywhere previously.

You stated: "It is clear the cyclist is not the full shilling..." (In
Message-ID: )

That was you berating the cyclist, and you made that claim on account
of the tattoos he had that were not to your liking. That's what I was
assessing as being unreasonable.

What I wrote is correct. Following observations about the cyclist's
preference for unusually extensive tattooing, I believe it likely he's not
the full shilling. As you had difficulty accepting this, I provided a
link to research which has stated this. Then you had difficulty
understanding the research. After it was explained to you, you then
assert that reversing the final causality makes no difference.

This is like a discussion with Vicky Pollard from Little Britain. Where
is such a mindless discussion headed, if not down the pan?

Then you judged it would be unreasonable to do so, even though it was
something no one had ever suggested doing.

It was me who then imagined having to tell the cyclist there were
concerns about his tattoos.

The debate isn't about the cyclist's reaction on being told what his
extensive tattooing could indicate. Nor is it about the actual content of
his tattoos. Instead it's about the attitude the cyclist may have brought
to the accident, as deduced from his extensive tattooing. Maybe he viewed
himself as a "hard man" able to settle scores physically and the tattoos
state his self-image? Maybe he's narcissistic and must always be better
than others, including road users? Who knows exactly what?

I wrote at first: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the gentleman's
extensive tattoos". That question remains.

Could I go with your version? "Based on the tattoos you have, it is
clear that you the cyclist are not the full shilling." Could I justify
that? No, I couldn't.

If, on the other hand, the cyclist already had a definitive diagnosis
of mental illness, rather than too many tattoos for my liking, then I
could have gone with your version as being reasonable.

The tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average person to have a
diagnosis of mental illness and I include personality disorders. The
article shows that. Not that any diagnosis is mandatory to suffer from a
mental illness.

Pamela wrote:

On 20:49 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 17:27 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:


Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the tattoo
correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on our
mental health they would have to say something like: 'the survey-based
study also found that having tattoos was significantly related to
overall health status'.

The direction of causation is as follows: someone on account of their
"delicate" mental state makes a decision to have themself extensively
tattooed.

The correlation occurs from this. You seem to have reversed the
direction of causation although the article explained it and Nugent was
able to grasp the meaning easily enough.

Are you really making an issue of that? So someone who has a delicate
state of mind has to have that before they get the tattoos. Someone who
gets the tattoos first may not have a delicate state of mind but may
develop a delicate state of mind later. Ultimately, you always end up
with someone who has tattoos and may or may not have a delicate state of
mind. Is there some advantage for me to gain by 'wilfully' reversing a
direction of causation, where applicable?

You're getting muddled once again. One can't say the direction of
causality is irrelevant. The direction of causality is important to the
discussion. Perhaps you are trying to develop an alternative Bayes
Theorem from scratch but finding it rather heavy going. Why can't you
accept research findings instead of scrabbling around trying to raise
increasingly obscure "Yes buts".

[SNIP]

You created a hypothetical example (of berating the fallen cyclist) and
made it part of what you were assessing for reasonableness, even though
this activity had never appeared anywhere previously.

You stated: "It is clear the cyclist is not the full shilling..." (In
Message-ID: )

That was you berating the cyclist, and you made that claim on account
of the tattoos he had that were not to your liking. That's what I was
assessing as being unreasonable.

What I wrote is correct. Following observations about the cyclist's
preference for unusually extensive tattooing, I believe it likely he's not
the full shilling. As you had difficulty accepting this, I provided a
link to research which has stated this. Then you had difficulty
understanding the research. After it was explained to you, you then
assert that reversing the final causality makes no difference.

This is like a discussion with Vicky Pollard from Little Britain. Where
is such a mindless discussion headed, if not down the pan?

Then you judged it would be unreasonable to do so, even though it was
something no one had ever suggested doing.

It was me who then imagined having to tell the cyclist there were
concerns about his tattoos.

The debate isn't about the cyclist's reaction on being told what his
extensive tattooing could indicate. Nor is it about the actual content of
his tattoos. Instead it's about the attitude the cyclist may have brought
to the accident, as deduced from his extensive tattooing. Maybe he viewed
himself as a "hard man" able to settle scores physically and the tattoos
state his self-image? Maybe he's narcissistic and must always be better
than others, including road users? Who knows exactly what?

I wrote at first: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the gentleman's
extensive tattoos". That question remains.

Could I go with your version? "Based on the tattoos you have, it is
clear that you the cyclist are not the full shilling." Could I justify
that? No, I couldn't.

If, on the other hand, the cyclist already had a definitive diagnosis
of mental illness, rather than too many tattoos for my liking, then I
could have gone with your version as being reasonable.

The tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average person to have a
diagnosis of mental illness and I include personality disorders. The
article shows that. Not that any diagnosis is mandatory to suffer from a
mental illness.

Hi Pam, I think I have found your problem. You are clearly prejudiced
against people with tattoos (as well as cyclists, of course). And
unfortunately for this gentleman who was kicked off his bike, he was
both a cyclist and had tattoos.

We all know that if you don't recognise your problem then you can't do
anything about it, because, obviously, you don't even know it's there.
I have therefore taken the trouble to just explain the following for
you. Either take note of it or, indeed, disregard it, as you wish.

It seems to me that you see this gentleman cyclist as deviating from
the mainstream in terms of a physical appearance and you have thus
subject him to rejection and prejudice. You will know that stigma is
the relationship between a socially undesirable characteristic and a
stereotype. It appears that your behaviour over this issue is down to
the preconceived notions you hold. And it's worse with you in this
case because the person you have stigmatised is not only a cyclist but
someone who you additionally see as being 'responsible' for their lot.
That, incidentally, is known as 'controllable stigma', and it includes
tattoos because they arise as a matter of choice.

As an aside, this is going to be the last of our glorious sunny days,
for a while. A perfect opportunity to nip down to the beach, making
time for some fish and chips with a nice strawberry sundae to finish -
don't miss out, will ya!

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 10:16:30 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


PS: What does the amount of the insurance payout have to do with not
having a smartphone or not waering a helmet?

They all occured in the same incident.

On 11:30 2 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 10:16:30 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


PS: What does the amount of the insurance payout have to do with not
having a smartphone or not waering a helmet?

They all occured in the same incident.

So did your injuries that sent you to hospital but you didn't mention them. I
think the insurance payment has some special meaning for you but what is it?

On 11:11 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 20:49 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 17:27 1 Jun 2020, Kelly said:


Doesn't that make sense of all the laguage used. I mean if the
tattoo correlation was found to have a risk of a profound affect on
our mental health they would have to say something like: 'the
survey-based study also found that having tattoos was significantly
related to overall health status'.

The direction of causation is as follows: someone on account of their
"delicate" mental state makes a decision to have themself extensively
tattooed.

The correlation occurs from this. You seem to have reversed the
direction of causation although the article explained it and Nugent
was able to grasp the meaning easily enough.

Are you really making an issue of that? So someone who has a delicate
state of mind has to have that before they get the tattoos. Someone
who gets the tattoos first may not have a delicate state of mind but
may develop a delicate state of mind later. Ultimately, you always end
up with someone who has tattoos and may or may not have a delicate
state of mind. Is there some advantage for me to gain by 'wilfully'
reversing a direction of causation, where applicable?

You're getting muddled once again. One can't say the direction of
causality is irrelevant. The direction of causality is important to the
discussion. Perhaps you are trying to develop an alternative Bayes
Theorem from scratch but finding it rather heavy going. Why can't you
accept research findings instead of scrabbling around trying to raise
increasingly obscure "Yes buts".

[SNIP]

You created a hypothetical example (of berating the fallen cyclist)
and made it part of what you were assessing for reasonableness, even
though this activity had never appeared anywhere previously.

You stated: "It is clear the cyclist is not the full shilling..." (In
Message-ID: )

That was you berating the cyclist, and you made that claim on account
of the tattoos he had that were not to your liking. That's what I was
assessing as being unreasonable.

What I wrote is correct. Following observations about the cyclist's
preference for unusually extensive tattooing, I believe it likely he's
not the full shilling. As you had difficulty accepting this, I provided
a link to research which has stated this. Then you had difficulty
understanding the research. After it was explained to you, you then
assert that reversing the final causality makes no difference.

This is like a discussion with Vicky Pollard from Little Britain. Where
is such a mindless discussion headed, if not down the pan?

Then you judged it would be unreasonable to do so, even though it was
something no one had ever suggested doing.

It was me who then imagined having to tell the cyclist there were
concerns about his tattoos.

The debate isn't about the cyclist's reaction on being told what his
extensive tattooing could indicate. Nor is it about the actual content
of his tattoos. Instead it's about the attitude the cyclist may have
brought to the accident, as deduced from his extensive tattooing. Maybe
he viewed himself as a "hard man" able to settle scores physically and
the tattoos state his self-image? Maybe he's narcissistic and must
always be better than others, including road users? Who knows exactly
what?

I wrote at first: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the
gentleman's extensive tattoos". That question remains.

Could I go with your version? "Based on the tattoos you have, it is
clear that you the cyclist are not the full shilling." Could I justify
that? No, I couldn't.

If, on the other hand, the cyclist already had a definitive diagnosis
of mental illness, rather than too many tattoos for my liking, then I
could have gone with your version as being reasonable.

The tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average person to have a
diagnosis of mental illness and I include personality disorders. The
article shows that. Not that any diagnosis is mandatory to suffer from
a mental illness.

Hi Pam, I think I have found your problem. You are clearly prejudiced
against people with tattoos (as well as cyclists, of course). And
unfortunately for this gentleman who was kicked off his bike, he was
both a cyclist and had tattoos.

We all know that if you don't recognise your problem then you can't do
anything about it, because, obviously, you don't even know it's there.
I have therefore taken the trouble to just explain the following for
you. Either take note of it or, indeed, disregard it, as you wish.

It seems to me that you see this gentleman cyclist as deviating from the
mainstream in terms of a physical appearance and you have thus subject
him to rejection and prejudice. You will know that stigma is the
relationship between a socially undesirable characteristic and a
stereotype. It appears that your behaviour over this issue is down to
the preconceived notions you hold. And it's worse with you in this case
because the person you have stigmatised is not only a cyclist but
someone who you additionally see as being 'responsible' for their lot.
That, incidentally, is known as 'controllable stigma', and it includes
tattoos because they arise as a matter of choice.

As an aside, this is going to be the last of our glorious sunny days,
for a while. A perfect opportunity to nip down to the beach, making time
for some fish and chips with a nice strawberry sundae to finish - don't
miss out, will ya!

I provided the research evidence to support my statement but, even after
it was explained to you, you remain in denial. You hold onto some strange
notions and refuse to change despite the evidence.

On a similar note, I can say people who have extensive body piercings are
also more likely than not to have mental health problems. FLIP!!!
(That's you over-reacting just now to a simple truth.)

I do notice news reports today that the incidence of drinking during the
lockdown has gone up and wonder if that underlies your recent uncontrolled
emotional states: you use emotional logic in your Vicky Pollard thinking
and separately you display emotional over-reaction to comments here.

You recently mentioned you wished you had some recreational drugs and I
wonder which are your favourite. Perhaps you will say and it may explain
things.

As you mentioned to it, when I say I couldn't possibly ever eat fish and
chips standing up at the sea-front followed by ice cream it seems to
violate some rule of yours. Sorry about that. I know what I like to
eat and don't need your advice.

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 12:42:37 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 11:30 2 Jun 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 10:16:30 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


PS: What does the amount of the insurance payout have to do with not
having a smartphone or not waering a helmet?

They all occured in the same incident.

So did your injuries that sent you to hospital but you didn't mention them. I
think the insurance payment has some special meaning for you but what is it?

It bought me some new wheels that got trashed in the crash.

Pamela wrote:

On 11:11 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:
Hi Pam, I think I have found your problem. You are clearly prejudiced
against people with tattoos (as well as cyclists, of course). And
unfortunately for this gentleman who was kicked off his bike, he was
both a cyclist and had tattoos.

We all know that if you don't recognise your problem then you can't do
anything about it, because, obviously, you don't even know it's there.
I have therefore taken the trouble to just explain the following for
you. Either take note of it or, indeed, disregard it, as you wish.

It seems to me that you see this gentleman cyclist as deviating from the
mainstream in terms of a physical appearance and you have thus subject
him to rejection and prejudice. You will know that stigma is the
relationship between a socially undesirable characteristic and a
stereotype. It appears that your behaviour over this issue is down to
the preconceived notions you hold. And it's worse with you in this case
because the person you have stigmatised is not only a cyclist but
someone who you additionally see as being 'responsible' for their lot.
That, incidentally, is known as 'controllable stigma', and it includes
tattoos because they arise as a matter of choice.

As an aside, this is going to be the last of our glorious sunny days,
for a while. A perfect opportunity to nip down to the beach, making time
for some fish and chips with a nice strawberry sundae to finish - don't
miss out, will ya!

I provided the research evidence to support my statement but, even after
it was explained to you, you remain in denial. You hold onto some strange
notions and refuse to change despite the evidence.

I am not in denial, I accepted the evidence supplied. And so I
accepted that the tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average
person to have a diagnosis of mental illness (but not to a degree that
is significantly related to his overall health status.). In fairness
I should also acknowledge that you now also go with this version (even
though you have added embellishments which are, strictly speaking,
still within reason). Anyway, it is a definite improvement on your
initial claim that the tattooed cyclist is clearly short of a
shilling.

On a similar note, I can say people who have extensive body piercings are
also more likely than not to have mental health problems. FLIP!!!
(That's you over-reacting just now to a simple truth.)

That does not make me FLIP!!! What could make me over-react
(possibly) would be someone claiming that another person was clearly
short of a shilling based on nothing more than the fact that they had
a few piercings.

I do notice news reports today that the incidence of drinking during the
lockdown has gone up and wonder if that underlies your recent uncontrolled
emotional states: you use emotional logic in your Vicky Pollard thinking
and separately you display emotional over-reaction to comments here.

See how quickly you jump to conclusions? And extreme conclusions at
that. Then run with them?

You recently mentioned you wished you had some recreational drugs and I
wonder which are your favourite. Perhaps you will say and it may explain
things.

Yet more extreme conclusions. I once tried to make a small joke of a
previous extreme drug related conclusion of yours, but it obviously
went over your head and now you are running with this new improved and
enhanced version. I can't be bothered to go back and find all the
relevant message id's - but, of course, could do if necessary).

You talk of my uncontrolled emotional states but do you really think
you hold dispassionate views about cyclists and about people with
tattoos and piercings? If I have over-reacted in interacting with you
it is probably because I have taken some of your more provocative
views too seriously. But that is my fault - I know life is 90% how
you respond, but it's not only about having the knowledge, the wisdom
to use it also needs to be gained.

As you mentioned to it, when I say I couldn't possibly ever eat fish and
chips standing up at the sea-front followed by ice cream it seems to
violate some rule of yours.

I used to see it more as a kind of in-joke between us. I like the
standing up bit, by the way. No rules of mine have been violated.

Sorry about that.

No apology required.

I know what I like to eat and don't need your advice.

Yep, I am sure you are right on both of those.

On 19:52 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 11:11 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said: Pamela wrote:

Hi Pam, I think I have found your problem. You are clearly prejudiced
against people with tattoos (as well as cyclists, of course). And
unfortunately for this gentleman who was kicked off his bike, he was
both a cyclist and had tattoos.

We all know that if you don't recognise your problem then you can't do
anything about it, because, obviously, you don't even know it's there.
I have therefore taken the trouble to just explain the following for
you. Either take note of it or, indeed, disregard it, as you wish.

It seems to me that you see this gentleman cyclist as deviating from
the mainstream in terms of a physical appearance and you have thus
subject him to rejection and prejudice. You will know that stigma is
the relationship between a socially undesirable characteristic and a
stereotype. It appears that your behaviour over this issue is down to
the preconceived notions you hold. And it's worse with you in this
case because the person you have stigmatised is not only a cyclist but
someone who you additionally see as being 'responsible' for their lot.
That, incidentally, is known as 'controllable stigma', and it includes
tattoos because they arise as a matter of choice.

As an aside, this is going to be the last of our glorious sunny days,
for a while. A perfect opportunity to nip down to the beach, making
time for some fish and chips with a nice strawberry sundae to finish -
don't miss out, will ya!

I provided the research evidence to support my statement but, even after
it was explained to you, you remain in denial. You hold onto some
strange notions and refuse to change despite the evidence.

I am not in denial, I accepted the evidence supplied. And so I accepted
that the tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average person to have
a diagnosis of mental illness (but not to a degree that is significantly
related to his overall health status.). In fairness I should also
acknowledge that you now also go with this version (even though you have
added embellishments which are, strictly speaking, still within reason).
Anyway, it is a definite improvement on your initial claim that the
tattooed cyclist is clearly short of a shilling.

On a similar note, I can say people who have extensive body piercings
are also more likely than not to have mental health problems. FLIP!!!
(That's you over-reacting just now to a simple truth.)

That does not make me FLIP!!! What could make me over-react (possibly)
would be someone claiming that another person was clearly short of a
shilling based on nothing more than the fact that they had a few
piercings.

The research indicates that the gentleman is more likely than not to have
mental health problems is based his proclivity to have extensive
tattooing. You don't need research as common sense would reach the same
conclusion but I suppose the research gives it a scientific basis. I am
sorry you have had trouble with that.

I do notice news reports today that the incidence of drinking during the
lockdown has gone up and wonder if that underlies your recent
uncontrolled emotional states: you use emotional logic in your Vicky
Pollard thinking and separately you display emotional over-reaction to
comments here.

See how quickly you jump to conclusions? And extreme conclusions at
that. Then run with them?

You recently mentioned you wished you had some recreational drugs and I
wonder which are your favourite. Perhaps you will say and it may
explain things.

Yet more extreme conclusions. I once tried to make a small joke of a
previous extreme drug related conclusion of yours, but it obviously went
over your head and now you are running with this new improved and
enhanced version. I can't be bothered to go back and find all the
relevant message id's - but, of course, could do if necessary).

What you wrote is a tell. Perhaps you inhabit the drug taking ethos that
you can't see what it gives away. Let me reframe it and reverse the
situation. If you had asked me if I'm taking drugs (or alcohol to
excess), I would not reply "I should be so lucky" because I don't consider
people who take recreational drugs to be lucky at all. They on the other
hand don't understand that way of thinking at all.

You talk of my uncontrolled emotional states but do you really think you
hold dispassionate views about cyclists and about people with tattoos
and piercings? If I have over-reacted in interacting with you it is
probably because I have taken some of your more provocative views too
seriously. But that is my fault - I know life is 90% how you respond,
but it's not only about having the knowledge, the wisdom to use it also
needs to be gained.

There are dozens of studies which show extensive tattooing is correlated
with mental health problems. Pick and choose from he

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...+mental+health

Which is why I wrote: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the
gentleman's extensive tattoos" yet it seems to upset you greatly

Pamela wrote:

On 19:52 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 11:11 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said: Pamela wrote:

Hi Pam, I think I have found your problem. You are clearly prejudiced
against people with tattoos (as well as cyclists, of course). And
unfortunately for this gentleman who was kicked off his bike, he was
both a cyclist and had tattoos.

We all know that if you don't recognise your problem then you can't do
anything about it, because, obviously, you don't even know it's there.
I have therefore taken the trouble to just explain the following for
you. Either take note of it or, indeed, disregard it, as you wish.

It seems to me that you see this gentleman cyclist as deviating from
the mainstream in terms of a physical appearance and you have thus
subject him to rejection and prejudice. You will know that stigma is
the relationship between a socially undesirable characteristic and a
stereotype. It appears that your behaviour over this issue is down to
the preconceived notions you hold. And it's worse with you in this
case because the person you have stigmatised is not only a cyclist but
someone who you additionally see as being 'responsible' for their lot.
That, incidentally, is known as 'controllable stigma', and it includes
tattoos because they arise as a matter of choice.

As an aside, this is going to be the last of our glorious sunny days,
for a while. A perfect opportunity to nip down to the beach, making
time for some fish and chips with a nice strawberry sundae to finish -
don't miss out, will ya!

I provided the research evidence to support my statement but, even after
it was explained to you, you remain in denial. You hold onto some
strange notions and refuse to change despite the evidence.

I am not in denial, I accepted the evidence supplied. And so I accepted
that the tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average person to have
a diagnosis of mental illness (but not to a degree that is significantly
related to his overall health status.). In fairness I should also
acknowledge that you now also go with this version (even though you have
added embellishments which are, strictly speaking, still within reason).
Anyway, it is a definite improvement on your initial claim that the
tattooed cyclist is clearly short of a shilling.

On a similar note, I can say people who have extensive body piercings
are also more likely than not to have mental health problems. FLIP!!!
(That's you over-reacting just now to a simple truth.)

That does not make me FLIP!!! What could make me over-react (possibly)
would be someone claiming that another person was clearly short of a
shilling based on nothing more than the fact that they had a few
piercings.

The research indicates that the gentleman is more likely than not to have
mental health problems is based his proclivity to have extensive
tattooing.

Hi, Pam, I don't know how you manage it but where has your opening
sentence come from? The research I've seen (the link you initially
gave and a Daily Mail piece) does, in fact, not indicate that the
gentleman in question is more likely than not to have mental health
problems. What it indicated was that the gentleman is more likely than
the average person to have mental health problems.

You don't need research as common sense would reach the same
conclusion but I suppose the research gives it a scientific basis. I am
sorry you have had trouble with that.

I suppose it could be because the research (including your initial
link) didn't give any real detail and was pretty vague. I have just
looked up what the chances are of the average person having a mental
health problem, and find it's surprisingly high at nearly 25%. So,
someone with a certain amount of tattoos will have a higher
probability than that. Okay, but we don't know what the figure is,
although we do know it can't be too much higher because we were told
it wouldn't significantly affect the overall health of the tattooed
person. Thus a tattooed person's chances of having a mental health
problem could be anywhere from what? 1% or more than the chances of an
average person. I mean, how do you get from that to making your
opening sentence assertion?

I do notice news reports today that the incidence of drinking during the
lockdown has gone up and wonder if that underlies your recent
uncontrolled emotional states: you use emotional logic in your Vicky
Pollard thinking and separately you display emotional over-reaction to
comments here.

See how quickly you jump to conclusions? And extreme conclusions at
that. Then run with them?

You recently mentioned you wished you had some recreational drugs and I
wonder which are your favourite. Perhaps you will say and it may
explain things.

Yet more extreme conclusions. I once tried to make a small joke of a
previous extreme drug related conclusion of yours, but it obviously went
over your head and now you are running with this new improved and
enhanced version. I can't be bothered to go back and find all the
relevant message id's - but, of course, could do if necessary).

What you wrote is a tell. Perhaps you inhabit the drug taking ethos that
you can't see what it gives away. Let me reframe it and reverse the
situation. If you had asked me if I'm taking drugs (or alcohol to
excess), I would not reply "I should be so lucky" because I don't consider
people who take recreational drugs to be lucky at all. They on the other
hand don't understand that way of thinking at all.

I didn't take the question you asked to be a serious one, and so
answered it in a lighthearted way. There is nothing more to it than
that, really. Anyway, my recent drug test came back negative...
between you and I, my dealer has some explaining to do.

You talk of my uncontrolled emotional states but do you really think you
hold dispassionate views about cyclists and about people with tattoos
and piercings? If I have over-reacted in interacting with you it is
probably because I have taken some of your more provocative views too
seriously. But that is my fault - I know life is 90% how you respond,
but it's not only about having the knowledge, the wisdom to use it also
needs to be gained.

There are dozens of studies which show extensive tattooing is correlated
with mental health problems. Pick and choose from he

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...+mental+health

You must be kidding? There's no way I'm going to work my way through
that lot. I'm with Mr Nugent on this 'appeal to authority' thing.
Anyone can post a URL to a site which may or may not contain relevant
material. You're making this claim, it would be far better that you
precis what you feel is relevant and, where appropriate, provide a
link that backs it all up.

Which is why I wrote: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the
gentleman's extensive tattoos" yet it seems to upset you greatly

Well, let's see, it was speculative and it should take something more
substantial than a few tattoos to write off someone's credibility
basically covers it. None of us are mind-readers any more than we are
fortune-tellers. Then on top of that, tattoos are quite in fashion at
the moment - deciding upon where one draw the line (so to speak) on
what is acceptable and what is not, is getting ever more subjective
and how this relates to mental illness can't be that straightforward
either, I would have thought. Apart from that, yeah, not upset at
all, everything's great.