A review of a review
“Never quote a critic; it’s like quoting an adult male on what it feels like to bear a child.”
— Irving David Shapiro
In 1994, the editor of an Internet publication transmitted his review of my book You Must Not Let Them Con You! There’s Too Much at Stake to the Mens Sana Foundation, which had published it. This page contains a review of that review. For your edification and enjoyment. I hope. 

I selected it for inclusion in our web site for two reasons: (1) it’s an excellent example of what I wrote about in the book itself, especially the tendency of many people to string words together producing something analogous to a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces are blank on both sides — the words (pieces) fit together perfectly but there's no message — and (2) it’s also an outstanding example of  just, plain, ol' muddleheaded thinking.
But first a brief caveat
This site is for scuba divers only, looking to explore the depths. It's not for surfers looking to skim the water's surface. 

You see, scuba divers can be taught; surfers can only be entertained. And I am a teacher, not someone whose mission in life is to amuse others, although I'm told I can be very funny at times. 

But please know that this site will do more for you in the long run than will most “cool” (in quotation marks because I haven't the foggiest notion what that word means except in the context of temperature) sites. 

In this regard, my philosophy is much like President Reagan's when he made the observation that if you feed someone by giving him or her a fish to eat, you'll have to give that someone a fish every day. But if you teach that someone how to fish, then he or she will be able to feed him or herself from then on without help from anyone. 

I can teach you how to (1) correctly analyze and digest information, (2) think clearly and innovatively using that information, and (3) effectively communicate the results of that thinking to others. If you learn these skills — and you can, believe me, if you want to — not only will you be able to feed yourself every day, but you'll be able to put on a banquet at the same time and feed others as well until they, too, learn how to “fish.” 

You have my word. 

Now to continue.
From the book review, word-for-word
As far as I can determine, I am in full agreement with the stated aims of this book. Shapiro asserts, and I agree, that much of what passes for information in our world is unreliable — deliberately written or spoken in such a way as, at best, to allow misinterpretations, and, at worst, to deliberately mislead. The introduction says that the book is intended to provide training in detecting deception.
Analysis and commentary
Mr. Slade is partially correct in his understanding of the book’s purpose. But detecting verbal deception is only one side of the coin. The other side is freeing oneself from what Stuart Chase called the tyranny of words, thereby regaining control of one’s life.
From the book review, word-for-word
Part one of the book is six chapters: Language, Information, The Mind, The Anatomy of A Conversation, Go Directly to Jail, and Words, Words, Words, under the general heading, Fundamentals.
Analysis and commentary
Mr. Slade is correct — Part I does contain six chapters, they are entitled as he says they are, and they are presented under the general heading, Fundamentals.
From the book review, word-for-word
The basic tenet of this first section is that there are two types of communication intertwined within our language, and, even, thinking. One aspect of language deals strictly with concrete, observable information which relates to the “real world”. [sic] The other involves intangibles which are used either for meaningless exchanges or for deception — cons.
Analysis and commentary
Mr. Slade is only partially correct in his representation of the book’s basic tenets as presented in the first section. Some of the ones he left out are (1) words in the main are symbols in that their only function is to represent, or stand for, things (used in the broadest sense); (2) a word is not the thing it symbolizes; (3) that which a given word is intended to symbolize can exist in only one of two places — the real world, the world of sense, or in someone’s mind from which it can never escape; (4) that knowledge — information derived from experience — is far more reliable as the basis for decision-making than is word information, no matter how articulate or “expert” the source, (5) that deception can only be through language, usually verbal; and (6) that all meaning lies within and is solely a function of experience.
From the book review, word-for-word
Shapiro’s view of language and the mind is presented with primarily anecdotal evidence . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
Because meaning lies within, I have only a vague idea of what Mr. Slade means by “anecdotal evidence.” I think he means “observation in support of an hypothesis.” If that is true, it is the best kind of evidence, given the basic tenets of the book, as Mr. Slade believes them to be. Indeed, given those basic tenets, there could be no other evidence. I have to assume that if there could be, Mr. Slade would have identified what it would be. Surely not laboratory experimentation, surely not mathematical, surely not statistical. 
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine] . . . and would likely meet with little acceptance among linguists, sociologists, and the like. . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
There are two points to be made here: (1) Because “linguist” and “sociologist” are nothing more than labels, Mr. Slade has no idea, nor do I, as to what the bearers of those labels would accept or not accept; (2) There is nothing that any two bearers of a given label have in common other than gender and the label itself or other labels; and (3) how Mr. Slade would know what anyone else would accept or reject, let alone all the members of a given group, is totally beyond me.
From the book review, word-for-word
It runs counter, for example, to psycholinguistic theory, . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Everyone talks about psycholinguistic theory, but nobody knows what it is nor can anyone ever know what it is. And that’s because “psycholinguistic theory” is a verbal ghost — it has no referent, neither in the real world or, in my judgment, in anyone’s world of words. It is tantamount to a shadow without an object to cast it.
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine] . . . in that Shapiro states concepts can be removed from their linguistic framework, and can even be seen more clearly for the removal.
Analysis and commentary
Mr. Slade could not be further from the truth. Nowhere in the book does that statement appear. Indeed, the author’s position throughout the book is that language and thinking cannot be separated, that one can no more think without a language than can an artist express him- or herself without a medium.
From the book review, word-for-word
Part two, entitled, “Practice”, details various types of deceptive language practices, and how to detect them. From Argumentation Cons through Classic Con Strategies, The Experts and Authorities Con, The Statistics Con, The Psychology Con and The History Con, pointers are given to various spurious arguments. 
Analysis and commentary
Mr. Slade is essentially correct in his assessment and description of Part II.
From the book review, word-for-word
As an example, the careful reader will soon note that . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
At this point Mr. Slade lays the foundation for a fallacy of logic known as “begging the question.” Here’s the way that fallacy would go:  By the way, the foregoing scenario is pure speculation on my part. I can no more get into Mr. Slade’s head than he can get into mine. The difference appears to be that I’m aware of that and he’s not. But even that is speculation on my part.
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine] . . . the vast majority of Shapiro’s anecdotes and stories are sympathetic to the socially and politically conservative, or, antagonistic to the left. 
Analysis and commentary
What Mr. Slade means by “sympathetic to the socially and politically conservative, or, antagonistic to the left” is anybody’s guess. And it can never be more than that, because what he means can never leave his mind. 

But there is something else going on here. By making this statement, Mr. Slade begins laying the groundwork for another fallacy of logic, one known as the ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”) attack. 

The classic illustration of this fallacy takes place in a courtroom. As one of the defendant’s co-counsels arises to examine a witness, the other co-counsel whispers in his ear, “We don’t have a case, so you better abuse the other attorney.” 

Perhaps it was because Mr. Slade knew that he didn’t have a case that he made the attack. A writer’s social and political beliefs or philosophies have nothing to do with the merits or the lack thereof of his output. And just in case the reader of the review might miss where he is going with this attack, Mr. Slade throws in the phrase “obvious bias” a few lines further on. But it is evident that the bias is not in the book, but rather in Mr. Slade. The support for this hypothesis lies in the notion that unless every reader of the work sees the same bias in it that Mr. Slade sees, reason would dictate that that bias would have to be Mr. Slade’s rather than the book’s.
From the book review, word-for-word
It might therefore be said that the book should be discounted because of this obvious bias. In fact, the political and social bias of the book has no bearing on either the central theme of the book or the usefulness of Shapiro’s suggestions. The argument is therefore a spurious one, based solely on a perception of ability in certain ideological groups.
Analysis and commentary
Here Mr. Slade appears to engage in a bit of well-known courtroom trickery whereby an attorney attempts to prejudice the jury with a statement that he knows will be objected to by opposing counsel and disallowed by the judge. He does this because he knows full well that even though the judge orders the unlawful remarks to be stricken from the record, it is not possible to strike them from the minds of the jury members. 

And so Mr. Slade, after calling to the reader’s attention the author’s “obvious bias,” gallantly states that it should have no bearing “on either the central theme of the book or the usefulness of Shapiro’s suggestions.” One then wonders why Mr. Slade bothered to include the entire paragraph in his review. Unless, perhaps, it was to implant a bias against the book in the reader’s mind. But that, too, must ever remain a speculation. Only Mr. Slade knows, and I doubt that he would tell. 

Also, in passing, what Mr. Slade means in the last sentence of the paragraph also escapes me, especially the phrase “perception of ability in certain ideological groups.” Somehow it reminds me of a jigsaw puzzle comprising pieces that are blank on both sides — when completed, the pieces (read words) fit together perfectly but there’s no picture (read message).
From the book review, word-for-word
We live in a supposed “information age”. [sic] In reality, while bombarded with audio, visual and print media, ads, marketing campaigns, promotions from special interest groups and other data, we may actually be less informed than those of the Victorian era, a time of rich amateur scholarship. The central purpose of the book, therefore, is vitally important in this day and age. 
Analysis and commentary
Mr. Slade’s next paragraph reminds me of that much-repeated phrase, “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.” The problem with Mr. Slade, however, is that he doesn’t giveth and taketh away in this review and be done with it. But rather, he giveth and taketh and giveth and taketh and giveth and taketh. 
From the book review, word-for-word
Unfortunately, Shapiro may not succeed in the practical application of that purpose.
Analysis and commentary
A fair statement. Being an opinion, who could quarrel with it?
From the book review, word-for-word
In the first place, the dichotomy between concrete, real world language and the misleading language that Shapiro suggests we do away with, is not clear cut. 
Analysis and commentary
First, I’m not sure what Mr. Slade means by “dichotomy,” but from the context I would deduce that he means “difference” or “separation between.”  If that be the case, Mr. Slade’s claim could not be further from the truth. Either the referent of a word or phrase can be sensed or it cannot. If it can, it’s real. If it cannot, it’s imagined or nonexistent. And second, nowhere in the book does the author say that misleading language should be done away with. What he does say is that such language should be understood as being misleading.
From the book review, word-for-word
Those interested in this book should consider reading, in addition, “The Abolition of Man,” by C.S. Lewis. Lewis argues the other side of this very point and concludes that reducing language in the way that Shapiro describes leaves us with a descriptive capability only, unable to determine any prescriptive statements.
Analysis and commentary
Descriptive language is the language of science, the language of the what is. I don’t know what Mr. Slade means by “determining prescriptive statements.” But from the context, I would deduce that by “prescriptive statement” he means the language of non-science, the what could be, the what might be, the what should be, the what ought to be, and so on. If I am correct in this, then it appears that Mr. Slade thinks (and because I have no way of knowing what Mr. Slade thinks, this is merely an inference) that I think (and Mr. Slade can no more know what I think than I can know what he thinks) that we should do away with poetry, fantasies, and other expressions of prescriptive language. Not so. What is so is the importance of being able to tell the difference between the two. 

Also, as has already been said, there are words whose meaning can never escape from the mind of the one using them; they just spin ‘round and ‘round within. If C.S. Lewis used a generous helping of such words in “The Abolition of Man,” then neither Mr. Slade nor any other reader of that book could have any inkling whatever of what Mr. Lewis was trying to say. Only Mr. Lewis would have that knowledge. Meaning lies within and is a function of experience, which is always unique. Therefore, no one can know what someone else means by a specific word or phrase; he or she can only know what he or she means by it. And even his or her meaning of a specific word or phrase will change over time as his or her experiences change.
From the book review, word-for-word
Since the very title of the book contains a moral imperative statement (“You *must* not...”) there appears to be an internal contradiction here.
Analysis and commentary
As for the “imperative” being a “moral” one, I can no more convey to Mr. Slade what “moral” means to me than he can convey to me what “dichotomy” means to him. But within the context of my meaning of the word, there’s nothing moral about that imperative. It’s rather a question of who’s going to control your life — you or others. Allen Ginsberg said it much better than I ever could: “Whoever controls the language, the images, controls the race.”
From the book review, word-for-word
Further, Shapiro’s work is entirely negative . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
The word “negative” is customarily used as either a noun or an adjective. Its meaning in the case of the former is readily con-veyable—by pointing to its referent, by giving a description of its referent in concrete terms, or by giving an operational explanation of how a negative comes into being. As an adjective, no one can know someone else’s meaning of the word. He may think he can, because the word is so common. But he cannot. Further, the meaning of “negative” (as an adjective) belongs solely to the user of the word, in this case Mr. Slade; it has nothing whatever to do with the object. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Nothing is either negative or positive, but thinking makes it so. Therefore, the negativity that Mr. Slade found in the book does not belong to the book, but rather to Mr. Slade. He merely projected it into the book. For not only does beauty lie in the eyes of the beholder, so does negativity.
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine]. . . in terms of identifying what you cannot believe in a given statement.
Analysis and commentary
Nowhere in the book does the author tell the reader, or even suggest to him or her, what he or she can or cannot believe. On the contrary, the author repeatedly asserts that everyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. From the Introduction to the final chapter, the author urges that everyone think for him- or herself and not let others do it for him or her.
From the book review, word-for-word
Even heavily biased statements can provide you with some definite and useful information. For example, in the computer world, one often sees the terms “compatible” and “compliant” in describing technology related to certain standards. While compatible tends to have more cachet with the general public, compliant is actually the stronger term. Compliant means one must comply with the whole standard; compatible need only refer to a part. Therefore, the term “compatible” is an indication to the alert technology purchaser that the issue of compliance must be examined more closely. A work promoting these positive skills in interpretation would have been much more valuable.
Analysis and commentary
Try as I might, I could not come up with any example of how a heavily biased statement can provide one with some definite and useful information. Even the example supplied by Mr. Slade appeared to me to be a kind of non sequitur, because I failed to find any “heavily biased statement” in it. Perhaps it’s because I’m a computer knucklehead. On the other hand, I suspect that if a hundred people who claim to be computer literate were asked to clearly differentiate between “compatible” and “compliant” in the context of the computer world so that the “average” person (whoever that might be) could comprehend, the vast majority could not.
From the book review, word-for-word
The question of bias in the text is not automatically relevant to the book’s utility, but in some cases it has a bearing. Whether or not this is Shapiro’s own bias, his enthusiasm for certain illustrations has ironically weakened the related arguments. One example occurs in the chapter on statistics, where Shapiro cites a lengthy series of pieces arguing the relative safety of commercial aircraft. These pieces appear to use the same figures to come to different conclusions, and Shapiro uses this as an example of the uselessness of all statisti
Analysis and commentary
Following in its entirety is the exchange to which Mr. Slade refers: 
    “But statistics does make a dandy vehicle for a kind of intellectual free-for-all among people addicted to intellectual free-for- alls. Here are three letters published in the October 7, 1985 edition of the Wall Street Journal. They were all in response to an article on airplane crashes that had appeared in that same publication about a month before. 

    “The first letter: 
     

      ‘Number of accidents involving fatalities, before deregulation, 15, after deregulation 10; Number of fatalities, before deregulation, 206, after deregulation, 138; Number of fatalities per one hundred thousand flights, before deregulation, 3.21, after de-regulation, 1.85.
      ‘. . . deregulation has obviously been consistent with a marked improvement in the industry’s safety record.’ 
    “The second letter: 
     
      ‘The relative safety of travel by airplane, automobile, or light plane as expressed in fatality rates depends on how those rates are calculated. National Transportation Safety Board fatality rates per passenger mile . . . show that airline travel has .06 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles, automobile travel has 2 per 100 million, and light plane travel has 15 per 100 million. However, when these rates are calculated by vehicle mile . . . airline travel shows 6.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles, automobile travel shows only 3 per 100 million, and light plane travel shows 30 per 100 million. Thus, a person having a choice on how to travel from New York City to Washington, D.C., has more than twice the chance of becoming a fatality if he travels by commercial airliner as opposed to automobile. His chances are 10 times greater if he travels by light plane.’ 
    “And the third: 
     
      ‘Trains, buses and planes have roughly comparable safety records and are more than 20 times safer than the private automobile . . . Amtrak averaged one — and the plane and bus four—passenger fatalities per 10 billion passenger miles during 1976-82. . . . 

      ‘Thus the train is somewhat safer than the plane. . . .’

    “A few weeks later, two more letters appeared, addressing the same subject. 
    “The first one: 
     
      “. . . Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles do not give the odds on an individual’s dying if he travels by the mode in question; it gives aggregate deaths per distance traveled. If I die in a plane crash, many more fellow passengers are likely to die with me than if I die in an auto crash. To get the correct odds on dying on a plane trip one must adjust the figure for fatalities per million vehicle miles to allow for the number of passengers on board. Similarly for an automobile trip. But this gets us back to fatality rates per passenger mile. . . .’ 
    “And the other: 
     
      ‘. . . The number of deaths per passenger mile is independent of the number of passengers per vehicle, whether airplane or automobile, and hence has what is called an ‘invariant’ characteristic. On the other hand, the number of fatalities per vehicle mile can always be altered by changing the number of passengers per vehicle and as a result is not a very useful measure of fatalities. In the case of airplane travel, for example, the quantity could be minimized by having only one passenger per plane and yet we know that personal safety is not affected by the number of passengers per plane unless it is grossly overloaded.’ 
    “All this is about as useful and real as the message that appears on the bottom of your TV screen during a World Series game, to the effect that the batter hit .247 on odd-numbered Thursdays during the season, when facing pitchers who had been divorced in Mexico for the second time in an even-numbered year, and who had lost between 10.6 and 14.2 pounds while shooting the rapids on a leap-year Labor Day. “ 

    Nowhere in that discourse, or in any other part of the chapter, does the author hold that all statistics are useless; he only says that that kind of statistics is useless. Indeed, in the section immediately following the discourse, he says: 

    The concept of statistics is very much like the concept of time. Without language there could be no such thing as time as we conceive it to be, and without language there could be no such thing as statistics, also as we conceive it to be. Time is an invention of man, developed as a convenience. As a concept, it can be very useful. Statistics is also an invention of man, developed as a convenience. As a concept, it can also be very useful. 
From the book review, word-for-word
In reality . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
In whose reality Mr. Slade does not specify, even though there are as many realities as there are minds. We will assume that he means his.
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine] . . . the careful reader . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
It would appear that Mr. Slade is again laying the foundation for a “begging the question” fallacy of log
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine] . . . will note that the quoted pieces are careless in their use of “fatalities”, “accidents”, “passenger miles” and “miles travelled” (vehicle miles).
Analysis and commentary
Quite so.
From the book review, word-for-word
Again, Shapiro promotes the uselessness of “experts” . . . [ellipsis mine].
Analysis and commentary
The author never “promotes the uselessness of ‘experts,’”per se, but rather differentiates between the false experts, so to speak, and the true ones. As he says in the book: 
    "It is evident that various kinds of practitioners are symbolically qualified to be experts or authorities, but in no other way. They are the ones who depend upon trappings to impress the public: advanced college degrees, awards, memberships in professional organizations, job titles, licenses, etc. For such people, expert, authority, college professor, economist, sociologist, political scientist or the like is nothing more than a label, giving little indication of ability. 

    "But there are mavins. [The term “mavin” was previously introduced in the book as a Yiddish word intended to mean an expert.]  They are people of outstanding judgment, some of whom are interested in, and dedicated to, economics, some in and to political science, some in and to medicine, and so forth. They don’t need the trappings, and are usually not interested in them at all beyond what is necessary to conform to the requirements of society. They are our real experts."
From the book review, word-for-word
[ellipsis mine] . . . by citing Gould’s statement in the evolution / Creationism debate, that Creationism is not a science. Shapiro asks how it can be determined that Creationism is not a science. A fair question — but one that Gould did answer. Science can be disproved. The first time someone sends information faster than the speed of light, then special relativity fails. There is, however, no possible way to disprove Creationism, and therefore, it is not a science. Since these and other examples are easily refuted, the related points in the book are weaker than they could be.
Analysis and commentary
Following in its entirety is the item to which Mr. Slade refers. 

“In 1987, the United States Supreme Court heard an appeal from a Louisiana law calling for the teaching of creation science in the schools in addition to the theory of evolution, and found the law unconstitutional; a majority of the justices decided that the law violated the required separation of church and state. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, observing that the Louisiana law had a clear nonreligious purpose — teaching scientific theories other than evolution. His dissent drew fire from Harvard University geologist Stephen Jay Gould who said, ‘. . . creationism cannot qualify as science.’ I would ask Mr. Gould (1) which sciences can qualify as sciences and why — psychology? sociology? economics? political science? which? and (2) why is it that creationism cannot qualify as science, but the theory of evolution can?” 

First, nowhere in that item is there a response by Mr. Gould to the question rhetorically put to him. However, let’s assume that Mr. Gould did answer it somewhere and that he said that the difference between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that the former cannot be disproved. If that is the case, then Mr. Gould hung himself — and Mr. Slade as well — on his own academic lanyard. For if the Theory of Creationism cannot be disproved, neither can the Theory of Evolution. And by the same reasoning. Nor, for that matter, can any theory be disproved that does not involve measurable entities and procedures or experiments that are replicable. 
From the book review, word-for-word
Ultimately, though, Shapiro breaks his own rules, a much more serious violation. The last chapter is a list of what to do in order to avoid conning others. Shapiro uses the emotionally charged words and phrases he tells readers to avoid.
Analysis and commentary
At this point, one begins to wonder which book Mr. Slade was evaluating at the time he wrote this review, for there do not appear to be “emotionally charged words and phrases” in the last chapter.
From the book review, word-for-word
He gives partial evidence (only that which supports him). 
Analysis and commentary
I haven’t the slightest idea of what Mr. Slade means by that sentence.
From the book review, word-for-word
He even refused to give his book a price, referringto copies ordered by “donation". [sic}
Analysis and commentary
Following in its entirety is the item to which Mr. Slade refers. It appears on the last page of the book. 

“If you would like to obtain additional copies of You Must Not Let Them Con You! There’s Too Much at Stake, you may do so by making a donation of $30 to the Mens Sana Foundation for each copy. Please make your check or money order payable to the Mens Sana Foundation and send it to: 

    Mens Sana Foundation 
    492 Staten Avenue, #1102 
    Oakland, CA 94610 
Allow 7–10 days for delivery. 
This offer expires December 31, 1994.”
From the book review, word-for-word
And one has only to read the author’s bio to see his failure to follow his own rules about “experts”. [sic] He holds four college degrees (statistics con) — what level?  what subject?  He is a member of Mensa (labels con) — so could many people be, if they wished to pay the fees. He was an adjunct professor (mother knows best con) — so have I been: it’s not a big deal. He had a brief stint as a Ford Foundation Fellow and Harriman Scholar (spokesman con) — were these, perhaps, bursaries?  He co-founded a California Bank (shift topics con) — well, he either has money or knows those who do. He worked as a talk show host (experts con) — this is a good point?  he practiced architecture for 13 years and hold [sic] four design awards (statistics con) — what does *any* of this have to do with language or the discernment thereof? 
Analysis and commentary
Here Mr. Slade commits what is known as the tu quoque fallacy of logic, with this one apparently being laced with attempted ridicule for good measure. 

The classical example of this fallacy is supposed to have taken place in a Moscow subway at the time the system first opened. It seems that an American was invited to inspect the facility accompanied by a Russian guide. During the tour, he was shown a magnificent station with posh rest rooms, self-registering turnstiles, etc. It was all very impressive. Then he noticed that he had been in the station for almost an hour, and had yet to see a train. When he mentioned that to the guide, the latter responded with, “Oh, yeah? Well, what about the lynchings in the South?”  The tu quoque response qualifies as a fallacy because it leaves the assertion unaddressed — there is neither an acceptance nor a refutation of the opponent’s position. 

In the book the author defines a con as an attempt to deceive someone so that he or she will do or say something that he or she would not otherwise do or say, something that is contrary to his or her best interest. How someone’s true curriculum vitae can constitute a con is beyond my comprehension. Nonetheless: 
 

If these are cons . . Then these must also be cons 
He holds four college  degrees.  He has five fingers on each hand.
He is a member of Mensa. He is a member of Rotary.
He was an adjunct professor. He was a shoe clerk.. 
He had a brief stint as a Ford Foundation Fellow and Harriman Scholar. He had a brief stint as Mayor of Newark and as the starting quarterback for the New York Football Giants. 
He co-founded a California 
Bank. 		 He started a laundry business. 
He practiced architecture for 13 years and hold [sic] four design awards.  He was a film actor for 13 years and hold [sic] four design awards. 
Mr. Slade then asks, “. . . what does *any* of this have to do with language or the discernment thereof?” It’s a perfect example of the con of qualifications, because if something is true, it is true no matter who says it. And if something is false, it is false no matter who says it.  It is not uncommon for a so-called layman to solve problems that baffle “experts.” For as Zen master Shunryo Suzuki has pointed out, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.” 
From the book review, word-for-word
This book *does* give some good tips about how to pinpoint spurious arguments — although you will have to use those tips in order to spot the spurious arguments at places in the book. 
Analysis and commentary
What to one person is a “spurious argument” could very well be a “right on!” to another person. And, given the uniqueness of every-one’s mental makeup, neither would be right and neither would be wrong.
From the book review, word-for-word
Much of the material is unfortunately negative, and is of little value in enhancing communications. 
Analysis and commentary
A non sequitur, if I ever saw one. Further, because Mr. Slade does not explain what he means by “communications,” the basis for that opinion or judgment must ever remain locked up within his own head, not knowable to others.
From the book review, word-for-word
The brief list of tips in chapter thirteen may help you clarify your own spoken and written communications.
Analysis and commentary
Ah yes, the good Lord giveth, and the good Lord taketh away. Sic transit gloria mundi. 
click here for ordering information Is freedom from the tyranny of words, which means regaining control of your life, worth the price of a good dinner? If you believe that it is, click on the image to the left. (Don't worry, doing so isn't going to lock you into anything.) If you don't believe that it is, then I can't help you. No one can. But remember, you only get one shot at life. And if that one shot is spent in unhappiness, frustration, under continual stress, in poor health, and so on, well, it's your own bloody fault for not doing anything about it.
How to reach us.
Addresses (US Mail and e-mail)and telephone numbers (voice and fax) of the Mens Sana Foundation.
click here
Your comments are welcome
The End
click here to return to home page