My pet hate has to be.....

Sour wine gums :gag:
 
People who say "I've taken it upon myself..." Which translates as "I've nothing better to do with my time so intend interfering in something that's none of my business and cause as much disruption as I can."
 
People who say "may I do X?", but begin doing it before they even finish the sentence. If you don't care about the answer don't pretend to be courteous by asking the question!
 
Michaelk20 said:
People that don't pull their weight on the tea runs.
Click to expand...

I am dreading February and being mobile again as my colleagues have had to do my share of the drinks rounds for the last 4 months. I am pretty sure that I will be the sole drinks runner for most of 2013 :lol:
 
Wazzocks who refuse to indicate on roundabouts...IT IS LIKE A FRIGGIN GUESSING GAME AT TIMES..........!
 
Posties who leave the old "we tried to deliver but no-one was home" card when you know damn well someone was home and they just couldn't be arsed to bring the package with them in the first place, so they snuck back up the drive like a ninja. Those posties need to be hurt...badly.
 
fracster said:
Wazzocks who refuse to indicate on roundabouts...IT IS LIKE A FRIGGIN GUESSING GAME AT TIMES..........!
Click to expand...

Indicators....indicators.....hmmmmmm........yes, I remember them!!!!!

Don't actually think the are fitted to cars here.
 
fracster said:
Wazzocks who refuse to indicate on roundabouts...IT IS LIKE A FRIGGIN GUESSING GAME AT TIMES..........!
Click to expand...

Add to that people that do the complete opposite. Start indicating left and then sail past 2 or 3 exits.:bonk:
 
viv1969 said:
Posties who leave the old "we tried to deliver but no-one was home" card when you know damn well someone was home and they just couldn't be arsed to bring the package with them in the first place, so they snuck back up the drive like a ninja. Those posties need to be hurt...badly.
Click to expand...

I took a day off work to wait for a parcel - kept tracking it online only to discover that at 1.45 it had been signed for by someone called Kelly - not my name or any of my neighbours.

Couldn't get through to parcel farce but called Warehouse Express who sent the parcel and they found it had been delivered to my local post office 100 yards from my house. Apparently there was "nobody in" when the driver tried to deliver.

That was strange because at the time I was standing at the front door chatting to a neighbour and didn't see anyone try to deliver a parcel. Even stranger was the fact there was no card put throught the door. That arrived in the post two days later!
 
gm43uk said:
I took a day off work to wait for a parcel - kept tracking it online only to discover that at 1.45 it had been signed for by someone called Kelly - not my name or any of my neighbours.

Couldn't get through to parcel farce but called Warehouse Express who sent the parcel and they found it had been delivered to my local post office 100 yards from my house. Apparently there was "nobody in" when the driver tried to deliver.

That was strange because at the time I was standing at the front door chatting to a neighbour and didn't see anyone try to deliver a parcel. Even stranger was the fact there was no card put throught the door. That arrived in the post two days later!
Click to expand...

There ya go!...See? grrrrr
 
"Can" rather than "May".
 
TV adverts. I hate them with a passion. I drive my family mad by rushing to mute the TV as soon as ads come on. I would only watch a feature film on BBC 'cos I can't bear the film being interrupted. I was in the USA a couple of years ago and couldn't believe the sheer number and frequency of TV ads.
 
People making assumptions about you without knowing you

Oh and being called Kel

:)
 
People who think the word "photos" needs an apostrophe before the s.
 
"The ghost caravan Ford drivers' swing"! - you're approaching a road junction with 2 lanes, there's a car in the left hand lane indicating they're going to turn left, so you take the right hand lane - if it's a Ford, beware! - I know not why, but they have the habit of not just turning left, but doing a dramatic swing to the right (across "your" lane"), and then getting round to making the turn to the left, almost as if they have a vast caravan or other trailer in tow.......
I know not why, but its always Fords, and they will swing left when turning right, and vice versa......WHY????
 
Last edited:
I have many, but currently is seems to be pseudoskeptics. ;)
 
Organnyx said:
"The ghost caravan Ford drivers' swing"! - you're approaching a road junction with 2 lanes, there's a car in the left hand lane indicating they're going to turn left, so you take the right hand lane - if it's a Ford, beware! - I know not why, but they have the habit of not just turning left, but doing a dramatic swing to the right (across "your" lane"), and then getting round to making the turn to the left, almost as if they have a vast caravan or other trailer in tow.......
I know not why, but its always Fords, and they will swing left when turning right, and vice versa......WHY????
Click to expand...
None of mine have.
 
PatrickO said:
So are real skeptics ok? What's a pseudoskeptic?
Click to expand...

Someone who "pooh-pooh's" any idea they think is not cool to consider, when really they don't really have an opinion of thier own, but they don't want to appear "uncool" to the masses. There are plenty of them around.
 
A pseudoskeptic is a pseudoskeptic because he is acting or thinking in a pseudoscientific way. Pseudoscience is any belief, thought process or practice that claims to be scientific but violates proper scientific thinking or protocol. Thus, pseudoskeptics are pseudoscientists.
Click to expand...

From here
 
viv1969 said:
Someone who "pooh-pooh's" any idea they think is not cool to consider, when really they don't really have an opinion of thier own, but they don't want to appear "uncool" to the masses. There are plenty of them around.
Click to expand...

jon ryan said:
Quote:
A pseudoskeptic is a pseudoskeptic because he is acting or thinking in a pseudoscientific way. Pseudoscience is any belief, thought process or practice that claims to be scientific but violates proper scientific thinking or protocol. Thus, pseudoskeptics are pseudoscientists.

From here
Click to expand...

These seem to be two completely different definitions, and neither of them are terribly helpful. Why not just say that it is an opinion not based on good evidence rather than making up a word (pseudoskeptic) which is unclear and unhelpful.
 
A pseudoskeptic is someone who outright denies the possibility of something and is unwilling to adjust that viewpoint, regardless of the evidence before them, and is in that sense much like a denialist. Where a denialist and a pseudoskeptic differ is that a pseudoskeptic proclaims to only be skeptical (usually to enforce their own argument) about their position rather than admitting that no strength of argument to the contrary would change their stance as an honest denialist would.

That's my definition, but I feel it's rather more accurate than those above.
 
TriggerHappy said:
A pseudoskeptic is someone who outright denies the possibility of something and is unwilling to adjust that viewpoint, regardless of the evidence before them, and is in that sense much like a denialist. Where a denialist and a pseudoskeptic differ is that a pseudoskeptic proclaims to only be skeptical (usually to enforce their own argument) about their position rather than admitting that no strength of argument to the contrary would change their stance as an honest denialist would.

That's my definition, but I feel it's rather more accurate than those above.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad definition at all, but it's not the whole deal. I really like this essay on the subject from a man I admire greatly. http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html
 
TriggerHappy said:
A pseudoskeptic is someone who outright denies the possibility of something and is unwilling to adjust that viewpoint, regardless of the evidence before them, and is in that sense much like a denialist. Where a denialist and a pseudoskeptic differ is that a pseudoskeptic proclaims to only be skeptical (usually to enforce their own argument) about their position rather than admitting that no strength of argument to the contrary would change their stance as an honest denialist would.

That's my definition, but I feel it's rather more accurate than those above.
Click to expand...


So presumably the most common pseudoskeptics are religious people such as creationists who hold views despite a mountain of contrary evidence. Homeopaths would also come into that category. I still don't see why we need a new word for such people.
 
Last edited:
Phil1974 said:
Please tell me that was meant in jest :)
Seriously, if people don't want to drive at the speed limit then fine, but for petes sake move over and let those that do get past.
Click to expand...

Did I ever advise against doing that or say that I wouldn't... no, did I buggery.


wippers said:
From the Highway Code:

"check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane"

"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear."

:bonk:
Click to expand...

See above comment. :bonk: to you too! :cuckoo:


neil_g said:
I don't believe trench was suggesting that.
Click to expand...

Thank christ, someone who actually gets the point...

Now back on the subject of pet hates... a damn site of other road users to be exact. People who sit up your arse in a 30 because you're doing 30, or perhaps 29 and a half. People who park on double yellows or around the corner from junctions, I love giving a long blast of the horn for that. Oh, and people who don't know how to turn properly. I'd say the majority of people cut a corner when turning into a junction. Wrong! did these people not take a driving lesson?

The general driving style of people nowadays is absolutely appalling, aggression and haste seem to have taken over from any kind of logic.
 
PatrickO said:
So presumably the most common pseudoskeptics are religious people such as creationists who hold views despite a mountain of contrary evidence. Homeopaths would also come into that category. I still don't see why we need a new word for such people.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree, it's not a word I like, use, and nor do I think it is constructive to label others as such. It only serves to deride one person who disagrees with another. Fortunately, the only circles that seem to use it with particular frequency tends to be the realm of paranormal/extra-terrestrial/conspiracy theorists, which aren't topics I readily get myself involved in (but sometimes I just can't help myself :D) so I don't come across it too often.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I'm inclined to agree, it's not a word I like, use, and nor do I think it is constructive to label others as such. It only serves to deride one person who disagrees with another. Fortunately, the only circles that seem to use it with particular frequency tends to be the realm of paranormal/extra-terrestrial/conspiracy theorists, which aren't topics I readily get myself involved in (but sometimes I just can't help myself :D) so I don't come across it too often.
Click to expand...

I actually prefer the term fundamentalist-materialist but it's a bloody mouthful.

Religious folks are NOT pseudoskeptics, they are believers. A pseudoskeptic is one who proclaims to be skeptical and a user of scientific method, but instead idolises their interpretation of science and refuses to see any possibility that established science could be wrong and also refuses to acknowledge any possibility that anecdotal evidence may hold some weight. They almost never ask questions with a goal of discovery, but instead ask them to lead into a box they believe in.
 
The23rdman said:
I actually prefer the term fundamentalist-materialist but it's a bloody mouthful.

Religious folks are NOT pseudoskeptics, they are believers. A pseudoskeptic is one who proclaims to be skeptical and a user of scientific method, but instead idolises their interpretation of science and refuses to see any possibility that established science could be wrong and also refuses to acknowledge any possibility that anecdotal evidence may hold some weight. They almost never ask questions with a goal of discovery, but instead ask them to lead into a box they believe in.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "pseudoskeptic" is perfect for creationists and homeopaths. When you look at Creationist literature it almost always claims to be supported by scientific evidence. To quote a creationist article
"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model."

I have only had one conversation about evolution with a Christian creationist. He said that the Earth is about a million years old and that this was proved by science.

Surely almost everyone who has an opinion would claim that evidence supports their opinion. They would probably also claim that, being reasonable people, they will change their mind if you can prove they are wrong. My guess is that people use the word "pseudoskeptic" to denigrate other people who disagree with them.
 
Last edited:
people going on about new years resolutions; lucky it's usually a seasonal thing :nuts:
 
PatrickO said:
Your definition of "pseudoskeptic" is perfect for creationists and homeopaths. When you look at Creationist literature it almost always claims to be supported by scientific evidence. To quote a creationist article
"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model."

I have only had one conversation about evolution with a Christian creationist. He said that the Earth is about a million years old and that this was proved by science.

Surely almost everyone who has an opinion would claim that evidence supports their opinion. They would probably also claim that, being reasonable people, they will change their mind if you can prove they are wrong. My guess is that people use the word "pseudoskeptic" to denigrate other people who disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Have a read of this. Truzzi coined the term, I think, and explains it better than anyone. I agree with you re fundamentalists but even though some people use it to denigrate people with differing opinions that is not the true meaning of the word. It is quite simply somebody who claims skepticism but whose actions do not support that. An open mind is essential to skepticism and it is why Truzzi left CSICOP and formed the Zetetic Society.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
Have a read of this. Truzzi coined the term, I think, and explains it better than anyone. I agree with you re fundamentalists but even though some people use it to denigrate people with differing opinions that is not the true meaning of the word. It is quite simply somebody who claims skepticism but whose actions do not support that. An open mind is essential to skepticism and it is why Truzzi left CSICOP and formed the Zetetic Society.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html
Click to expand...

Had a read and wasn't very impressed. He just talks, not very clearly, about poor use of the scientific method. There is a very good literature around the scientific method which is much, much better written.

Yes, we know that lots of people do bad science either through incompetence or to willfully mislead. Truzzi's insights are not at all new.
 
Can you provide some names or links, please? Always looking for good sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top