A.J.PHILIPS...

What ! I really needed to re-read part of your concluding sentence. '...I still enjoy OLO and learn from others here...'? Other than your endeavor to 'learn' your pseudoscience, the verb 'learn' wouldn't normally form part of your vocabulary A.J.P !

And, as I've mentioned to you before, in my entire 32 years in the job, particularly when serving as a detective, there was not one single member, who either embraced or availed themselves to any theoretical component of your calling 'criminology', in order to discover the author of a crime.

There were a few of them, who pursued a qualification at the Uni. of Sydney, titled 'Diploma of Criminology', and as an approved course, the Department met all the Fees. There was a period when the more pieces of paper you had the greater the chance to advance yourself in rank. However A.J.P. with a change of Commissioner, who happened to be somewhat more pragmatic in his approach in his efforts in the interdiction of crime, fees for many of these external courses were subsequently extinguished.

However, courses that had a more direct, practical application to the job were encouraged - Accounting (Fraud Squad) and several science degrees, involving precise investigation in QDE.; ballistics; auto. engineering and others were vigorously encouraged, A.J.P.

I have no doubt, criminology might represent a great fictional, even mythical study of crime. Could even be juxtapositional to that of the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. But in the real world how many villains can you tell me, that've been locked-up as a direct result of criminology?

Moreover I'd like to see a Criminologist march into a pub, identify a couple of crooks consorting, and then pinch 'em., that'd prove an amusing sight, don't you reckon eh A.J.PHILIPS?

AJP seems to have difficulty with the fact that homosexuals are perverts.
The definition of perversion is the starting point:
Perversion:Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perversion.

On the basis that the original course of the anus is to function as an aperture for discharge of body waste, the insertion of a penis in the waste duct is a
corruption of the original course, or state, thus a perversion. The persons committing the act are perverts. The evidence is their own coming out as homosexual.. The acts of perversion will vary with different individual homosexuals, but they are all perverts.

Your purporting to limit the basis of my answer was of no consequence, AJP, I simply felt disinclined to bear the tedium of answering a question to which the answer is self evident to any rational person. You are not entitled to object to the description of “idiot boy”. It is appropriate and accurate, in light of your idiotic pressing of the question.

Am I a pervert if I receive fellatio?

o sung wu

That shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

<<What ! I really needed to re-read part of your concluding sentence. '...I still enjoy OLO and learn from others here...'? Other than your endeavor to 'learn' your pseudoscience, the verb 'learn' wouldn't normally form part of your vocabulary A.J.P !>>>

I've said that a couple of times before. The fact that you could be so surprised just goes to show how little you know me. This is why I don't take offence when you tell me how much you hate me: because it is not me you hate, it's a fictional caricature that you have invented and convinced yourself is me. Our dotty old Albanian friend, Misanthrope, does the same thing. If you can invent a persona to apply to me, and blame the discomfort that what I say brings you on that instead, then you don't have to ever admit that you might be wrong about some things. It's a basic defence mechanism.

As someone who didn't understand what peer-reviewed work was (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6653#201527), or what a scientific theory is (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310303), I hardly think you are in a position to judge what is and is not science. I understand that the study of crime rubs you the wrong way, but that hardly renders it a “pseudoscience”.

<<And, as I've mentioned to you before, in my entire 32 years in the job, particularly when serving as a detective, there was not one single member, who either embraced or availed themselves to any theoretical component of your calling 'criminology', in order to discover the author of a crime.>>

No, I don't think you've mentioned that before. But now that you have, I can say that police approach matters in ways that are grounded in criminological theory all the time, more and more as time goes on too, whether or not they realise it. I know profilers certainly understand that.

<<There was a period when the more pieces of paper you had the greater the chance to advance yourself in rank.>>

That's certainly understandable.

Continued…

...Continued

Police with higher education tend to stress less, and are less likely to need to use force when placed in similar situations.

<<However, courses that had a more direct, practical application to the job were encouraged - Accounting (Fraud Squad) and several science degrees, involving precise investigation in QDE.; ballistics; auto. engineering and others were vigorously encouraged, A.J.P.>>

I would think that having a better sociological and psychological understanding of the people one is dealing with would be very practical. That is, after all, one of the reasons why police with higher education stress less, and need to use force less often in similar situations.

<<I have no doubt, criminology might represent a great fictional, even mythical study of crime.>>

Do you have any example to back your claim that criminology is “fictional” and “mythical”? Perhaps you could give an example of a criminological theory that is applied on a daily basis and how applying it has been a hindrance to police work? I don't think you can.

<<Could even be juxtapositional to that of the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. But in the real world how many villains can you tell me, that've been locked-up as a direct result of criminology?>>

Directly? None, since it's the police doing the work on the ground. Indirectly? It would be most.

<<Moreover I'd like to see a Criminologist march into a pub, identify a couple of crooks consorting, and then pinch 'em., that'd prove an amusing sight, don't you reckon eh A.J.PHILIPS?>>

Why would that be amusing? And would it be any less amusing if they used to be a high-ranking officer?

--

Leo Lane,

Well, you were going to go down the tiresome old ‘anal sex’ route, but you seemed to pull yourself up half way through your post when you realised that that wouldn’t apply to all gay people. So now you’ve made up some nonsense about gay people coming out being the evidence of perversion, without explaining how coming out is a perverted act. So you still haven’t provided any evidence for your claim at all.

Try again, ol’ son.

AJP says:” going to go down the tiresome old ‘anal sex’ route”.
As I explained, I was asked a stupid question, by you, and bore the tedium of a full reply, because you pressed a question which has a self evident answer,.
To assist your poor comprehension, the “coming out” is evidence that they are homosexual, and being homosexual is evidence of perversion.
I have proved what I asserted.
You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, AJP.
I accept that you have no valid answer to my assertions, just pointless baseless, irrelevant criticism, which is the best an idiot can do, I suppose.