Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Monopolies (Updated)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PeterB - 19 Sep 2005 18:41 GMT
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
Monopolies

To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative,
uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine

Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum
are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange.  A
number of individuals with ties to industry are engaging an effort to
shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while
denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine.  I refer to
these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers"(*).  Pharma Bloggers on
usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the
case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. Most of these people are
likely to have an association with a PR campaign whose "blogging"
efforts are underwritten by the media and marketing groups of industry.
They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns of
behaviour in posting.

Here are a few points to remember while participating in usenet
newsgroups:

1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to
silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine.

2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the
effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management
"healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine.

3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses
simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to
have the last word.

4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual
participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread,
question, or observation.

5. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay
fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to
isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine.  You
will see this tactic used more often than any other.

6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to
"quack-busting" websites designed to denigrate natural medicine
approaches and their proponents.  Under the guise of "consumer
protection," the extreme bias of these promoters of mainstream medicine
belies their true motives.

7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet laud the virtues of various mainstream
medical treatments, citing "evidence based medicine" and the FDA
approval process.  They ignore studies showing the iatrogenic affects
of such treatment, as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved
drugs, and hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of
pharmaceutical drugs and other toxic exposures.  They also ignore
numerous studies showing the benefits of naturopathic healing,
including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, and
other methods.

Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream
medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward
others, and if that response is an attempt to denigrate natural
medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a "Pharma Blogger."
Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on
a daily basis than virtually anyone else, which is why I am posting
this alert.  If you find it odd that so few people on health-related
usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it
isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been
intimidated into silence.  The Pharma Bloggers have over-run the
various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma, mockery, and
ridicule.  Many casual posters are simply frightened away.  That's a
primary goal of these industry media jockeys, and they are very good at
it.

(*) Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet to: 1) promote
and defend maintstream medicine while denigrating natural medicine
approaches; 2) attack others who express a preference for natural
medicine, or who question the value of mainstream medicine; and 3) cite
a variety of "junk medical science" funded by industry for the purpose
of establishing markets for marginally effective, and often dangerous,
medical products and devices.

PeterB
Ilena Rose - 19 Sep 2005 19:17 GMT
>Yes, "Industry Bloggers" are very prolific on the newsgroup.

Why indeed we do:

From the quackwatch/ratbags/healthfraud group ... Barrett & his
Ratbags team.

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Probert  (many aliases)

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Langer

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Gorski

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Polevoy (in drag as "Vera
Teasdale" etc.)

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Thorson

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Bowditch

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Lowry

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Shoemaker

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Kinghoff  (many aliases)

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Nidiffer

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield (I believe Cathy B
is Dalefield)

Rich - 19 Sep 2005 23:51 GMT
> http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Shoemaker

Thanks, Illena, for giving me a link of my very own. But in the future,
please spell my name correctly. It's ShEWmaker.

Signature

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Mark Probert - 20 Sep 2005 14:56 GMT
>>http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Shoemaker
>
> Thanks, Illena, for giving me a link of my very own. But in the future,
> please spell my name correctly. It's ShEWmaker.

Congrats. You ae now BIG TIME!

Cue Jan to defend her handler, Ilena.
LadyLollipop - 20 Sep 2005 20:15 GMT
>>>http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Shoemaker
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Cue Jan to defend her handler, Ilena.

Actually, I think it is about time Rich corrected her, as I was ready to do
it myself.

She has the correct spelling in other places.

I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
Mark Probert - 20 Sep 2005 22:35 GMT
> I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
> when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.

I see, so you now acknowledge that since you did not speak up when Ilena
contacted my wife, you agree with her stalking and privacy invasion.

IOW, you support your fellow NetStalker's nefarious deeds although they
are the evil works of Satan.
LadyLollipop - 21 Sep 2005 00:58 GMT
>> I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
>> when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> IOW, you support your fellow NetStalker's nefarious deeds although they
> are the evil works of Satan.

Poor Mark STILL WHINING.

Dear Mrs. Drew:

I am using email to you since I do not wish to participate in Usenet. I
trust that you *wil* respect this. I *wil* not email you again, except to
forward to you other emails that Rosenthal has sent to me. She had the
unmitigated gall to actually post this email to a webpage, which she
acknowledges, and has since removed. She had the nerve to post my place of
employment in the newsgroups and on that webpage.

Frankly, I am tired of your constant blaming Mark for everything that
Rosenthal has done to him. This email was sent to ME, not him, by her. He
had warned her several times not to do so, but, she went ahead and emailed
me. I have spoken with some of Mark's friends in government law enforcement,
and they tell me that this can be construed as stalking behavior, since I
have never had contact with her.

Let me be blunt: I have been fully aware of Mark's activities from day one
as we share *verything* in our relationship. He has NEVER posted as Will
Ketcher, and we have not had an AOL account for a long time. However,
Rosenthal persists in accusing him.

Let me clear up this issue Mark's attempt to infiltrate her email list. He
has never denied doing so, and has clearly stated his reasons, which
Rosenthal rejects. When he mentioned that our younger son was about to have
surgery he began receiving some very nasty email which sounded quite a bit
like Rosenthal. I read them, and know that they were hate filled and
mirrored her usual verbiage. Some of them actually wished ill to our son.
Remember, I am an English teacher and I spend hours a day reading students'
work. I also felt that they could have originated with people who were
affiliated with her.

Mark was deeply offended by some of the statements in these emails, and he
attempted to locate the senders, but was unsuccessful. He then decided to
try to read her group to see if he could identify the offending individuals.
As you know, she found out what he did, and posted a message to that effect.
Mark *immeidatrely* acknowledged what he did, and expressed his reasons,
which she denied and said that we never received such email, even though she
had absolutely no way of reading his email inbox.

You have been *concistently*wrong about Mark, and even more consistently
wrong about Mark. I have read many instances where it was clear that you did
not *udnerstand* what he was saying. Now that you do not read his full
messages (many times you respond to something that has been severely edited)
or his replies, you are making assumptions based on less than all the facts.
If you were my student, you would get an F.

When I first received this email I was very upset by her actions, and I
wanted to file complaints with Hotmail, RoadRunner and GoDaddy, her website
host. Mark talked me out of it, as he does not think that such actions *wil
lhelp* her. In fact, he is convinced that she *wil* become even more abusive
and obsessed with "enemies." You know that I have every right to make such
complaints.

Several of my students have used her website about Mark in their *wrtiings*
in my senior honors writing seminar. Another group has used Rosenthal in a
debate in my senior debating class. They used her to demonstrate that the
First Amendment, which is posted in Mark's study, protects even the most
vile people. I gave them an A.

I trust that this helps you get a better perspective on Mark, and on
Rosenthal.

As I said above, I will not email you again, but I will forward all of her
current messages to me.

If you wish to respond to me, please do so at SandraProb...@hotmail.com. I
am using my professional email address simply because that is the address
Rosenthal used.

Sandra Probert

SPro...@nycboe.net
Mark Probert - 21 Sep 2005 14:14 GMT
>>>I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
>>>when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Poor Mark STILL WHINING.

Sorry, Dearie, but you have been caught in a conflict of your words. It
is not whining, although you would like it to be so you can dismiss it
from your minuscule, overburdened, mind.

You made a statement, and, when I applied it to your past actions, you
weasel and wiggle.
LadyLollipop - 22 Sep 2005 03:45 GMT
>>>>I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak
>>>>up when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Sorry, Dearie, but you have been caught in a conflict of your words.

I have been caught in no conflict of my words.

It  is not whining, although you would like it to be so you can dismiss it
> from your minuscule, overburdened, mind.

You have continually whined of what YOU are most guilty of and it is PROVEN.
I have no overburdened mind, whatsoever.

> You made a statement, and, when I applied it to your past actions, you
> weasel and wiggle.

I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.

Furthermore, I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER, that IIena was
planning to write to you wife,,,,,,,,P E R I O
D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get over it!!!
Mark Probert - 22 Sep 2005 14:20 GMT
>>>>>I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak
>>>>>up when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> I have been caught in no conflict of my words.

Sure you have. I explained it above. You just do not want to see it.

>>  It  is not whining, although you would like it to be so you can dismiss it
>>  from your minuscule, overburdened, mind.
>
> You have continually whined of what YOU are most guilty of and it is PROVEN.

No, dearie, it is not proven. You claimed it, but, never proved it. That
is your pattern which existed before you ever started posting to usenet.
It is just like your life long bigotry. Usenet does not cause one to
start being a bigot or being a judgemental nit picker.

> I have no overburdened mind, whatsoever.

In the sense that you do not have a mind, correct. I was giving you the
benefit of the doubt.

>>You made a statement, and, when I applied it to your past actions, you
>>weasel and wiggle.
>
> I have no handler,

Yes you do. You follow her around to newsgroups and when she is called
for her abusive behavior you jump right in to protect her. She has
trained you to do this.

and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak up
> when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.

You err in concluding that your speaking up about that moron's outright
bigotry is the same as my speaking out on the way you are dealt with.
YOU bring about the treatment you receive by your words, actions and
deeds. The moron was a generalized bigot where the people he was
defaming were not doing anything to ask for it.

When you shape up and improve your behavior, things will change. Until
then, do not expect anything.

> Furthermore, I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER, that IIena was
> planning to write to you wife,,,,,,,,P E R I O
> D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Horseshit. Ilena posted my wife's name several times. When somone does
that, there is a reason. She threatened to do it.

Further, when she did it, you did not address it. You remained silent.

> Get over it!!!

When you get over everything else. Set an example.
LadyLollipop - 22 Sep 2005 18:03 GMT
Get over it, Mark.

STOP MAKING UP LIE AFTER LIE.

>>>>>>I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak
>>>>>>up when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> When you get over everything else. Set an example.
PeterB - 22 Sep 2005 18:37 GMT
> Get over it, Mark.
>
> STOP MAKING UP LIE AFTER LIE.

Jan, no offense, but I prefer if you wouldn't change my subject
headers, I think it only serves to perpetuate the flame wars and
distract from the positive message about natural medicine.  Thanks!

Peter
LadyLollipop - 22 Sep 2005 19:32 GMT
>> Get over it, Mark.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Peter

Got it, I needed to start a new thread.

No offense taken.

Carry on with your good work.

Jan
Mark Probert - 22 Sep 2005 19:22 GMT
> Get over it, Mark.

Get over what you do not like about what Rich(s) posts.

> STOP MAKING UP LIE AFTER LIE.

There is not a single lie in this post. Every word is a fact, or my well
considered opinion based on the evidence.

>>>>>>>I have no handler, and UNLIKE you, I have proven my integrity to speak
>>>>>>>up when I disagree, REGARDLESS of who it is.
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>
>>When you get over everything else. Set an example.
Ilena Rose - 22 Sep 2005 18:39 GMT
You are an whining, lying, disbarred idiot Marla ...

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm
When the NY Supreme Court disbarred this stalking liar
Mark Probert - 22 Sep 2005 19:23 GMT
NetStalking deleted.
Ilena Rose - 22 Sep 2005 19:32 GMT
You are an whining, lying, disbarred idiot Marla ...

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm
When the NY Supreme Court disbarred this stalking liar
Mark Probert - 22 Sep 2005 19:39 GMT
netStalking deleted.
Mark Probert - 19 Sep 2005 21:41 GMT
> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
> Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> of establishing markets for marginally effective, and often dangerous,
> medical products and devices.

Thank you Peter for an excellent example of what I like to call a
"pre-emptive ad hominem" attack. It is, of course, utterly fallacious,
and merely a figment of your imagination, at best. At worst, it reflects
severe underlying parnoid pathology.

Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be
"outed" for expressing their views.

I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head. I
find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.
LadyLollipop - 19 Sep 2005 23:26 GMT
>> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
>> Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
> I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head. I
> find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.

What a total hypocrite you are, Mark Probert.

You have remained silent EVERY TIME any of your *gang* members have reared
their ugly heads, and no the silliness does NOT count.

You have NOT the first sign of any integrity to speak up, regardless of how
DESPICABLE it gets here. in FACT you are one of the most DESPICABLE.
Mark Probert - 20 Sep 2005 14:10 GMT
>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
>>>Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 90 lines]
>
> What a total hypocrite you are, Mark Probert.

Well, I said "when bigotry rears its ugly head" and you chime in.
Priceless.

I do not equate bigotry with what you are whining about. You bring about
what you get, and, if you do not like it, change your satanic, evil ways.

> You have remained silent EVERY TIME any of your *gang* members have reared
> their ugly heads, and no the silliness does NOT count.

I see no ugliness, except what you spawn.

> You have NOT the first sign of any integrity to speak up, regardless of how
> DESPICABLE it gets here. in FACT you are one of the most DESPICABLE.

Coming from a bigot such as yourself, I will take that as a compliment.
LadyLollipop - 20 Sep 2005 20:09 GMT
<snip childish waste of bandwidth>

>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
>>>>Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
>> You have NOT the first sign of any integrity to speak up, regardless of
>> how DESPICABLE it gets here. in FACT you are one of the most DESPICABLE.
Mark Probert - 20 Sep 2005 22:36 GMT
> <snip childish waste of bandwidth>

That is a lie. Since you did not snip out Petey's paranoid drivel, you
did not snip out a childish waste of bandwidth.
Orac - 20 Sep 2005 00:45 GMT
> Thank you Peter for an excellent example of what I like to call a
> "pre-emptive ad hominem" attack. It is, of course, utterly fallacious,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head. I
> find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.

It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
know what a weblog is? What a maroon.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

HCN - 20 Sep 2005 01:27 GMT
...>
> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
> Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
> know what a weblog is? What a maroon.

There have been attempts to tell him what the difference is.  His response
was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
and a "PharmaBlogger".  Sound familiar?
David Wright - 20 Sep 2005 05:33 GMT
>...>
>> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
>and a "PharmaBlogger".  Sound familiar?

It's all part of his general delusional system regarding his massive
importance.  First, he gets to define words however he wants, and
everyone is supposed to fall in line and agree with him.  Second, his
little pissant posts are so wonderful and so dangerous to the Big Evil
Pharmaceutical companies that they have a dozen (or so; I've lost
count) people on retainer whose only purpose is to post demeaning
responses to his missives.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
                                -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
HCN - 21 Sep 2005 15:49 GMT
>>...>
>>> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> count) people on retainer whose only purpose is to post demeaning
> responses to his missives.

Reminds me of my kids when they were younger... and even when I was a kid.
Kids sometimes hear a word and give it a meaning all their own.  My kids
used to try to tell that was how THEY were going to use the word "So
there!".  I explained to them that people will not understand them if they
give words meaning other than what is standard.

Many decades ago my sister got into trouble for this.  While in 6th grade
she had heard the term "prick" used.  So she started to call everyone a
"prick".  She made the mistake of calling our youngest sister that at the
dinner table.  It was then that my parents pulled her aside and told her to
never use words she did not know the definition of.

At least my kids and my sister learned proper use of their vocabulary.  But
it seems PeterB is not willing to learn, anything.

>  -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
>     These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
>     "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
>                                 -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Orac - 23 Sep 2005 03:56 GMT
> >...>
> >> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> count) people on retainer whose only purpose is to post demeaning
> responses to his missives.

Yeah, I'd like to know where I can get me a piece of that action.
Really, if it's as lucrative as PeterB claims, count me in!

(Note to PeterB: That's sarcasm, son. I normally wouldn't feel the need
to point that out, but you're so delusional about this whole "pharma
blogger" thing that it becomes necessary in your case.)

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

Mark Probert - 23 Sep 2005 14:20 GMT
>>>...>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> to point that out, but you're so delusional about this whole "pharma
> blogger" thing that it becomes necessary in your case.)

With Katrina and Rita, maybe we should look to sign up. Perhaps the
pharmaceuticals can get a discount on gas.
PeterB - 22 Sep 2005 20:27 GMT
> ...>
> > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
> and a "PharmaBlogger".  Sound familiar?

I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
isn't equivalent to standard blogging.  I never refer to the newsgroup
as a "blog."  The irony about your assertion that I've called others
stupid is the fact that pharma bloggers often "play stupid" in order to
ensnare well-meaning posters in useless debate.  Whatever works, right
HCN?

PeterB
HCN - 23 Sep 2005 00:54 GMT
>> ...>
>> > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> PeterB

Bully for you... using a word that has a specific meaning, and giving it a
different meaning only makes you look like an idiot.
Happy Dog - 23 Sep 2005 04:42 GMT
"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
>> isn't equivalent to standard blogging.  I never refer to the newsgroup
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Bully for you... using a word that has a specific meaning, and giving it a
> different meaning only makes you look like an idiot.
This narcissist can't see it any other way.  I've offered folding green if
he can produce evidence that people are paid by the pharmacological industry
to post here.  His "evidence" is nothing more that his own opinion.

moo
Mark Probert - 23 Sep 2005 14:22 GMT
> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> he can produce evidence that people are paid by the pharmacological industry
> to post here.  His "evidence" is nothing more that his own opinion.

It is not about "evidence" in the slightest. Petey came up with this as
a pre-emptive ad hominem to conveniently discredit anyone who disagrees
with him. If you take him to task for illogical, or lack of facts, then
you are "pharmablogger" and are inherently a liar.
David Wright - 23 Sep 2005 20:55 GMT
>> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>with him. If you take him to task for illogical, or lack of facts, then
>you are "pharmablogger" and are inherently a liar.

That's the great thing about paranoia -- it can easily be expanded to
include anyone you like as part of the conspiracy, and all the
paranoid has to do is announce that anyone who contradicts him is part
of the conspiracy and thus lying.  There's a certain beautiful
simplicity to it.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
                                -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 02:39 GMT
>>>"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> of the conspiracy and thus lying.  There's a certain beautiful
> simplicity to it.

Quite true. I have dealt with only one truly paranoid person, but very
pleasant person, on a long term basis. He assigned people to being part
of the conspiracy depending on whether they were doing something he
liked at the moment.

I am sure that Petey is equally pleasant in person.
Tim Campbell - 24 Sep 2005 07:44 GMT
> I am sure that Petey is equally pleasant in person.

Why don't we all meet somewhere sometime...we could have a metal
detector at the door and require Happy Dog to wear one of those shock
collars to make sure he stays in line...
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 13:21 GMT
>  >
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> detector at the door and require Happy Dog to wear one of those shock
> collars to make sure he stays in line...

We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
be excluded.
Tim Campbell - 24 Sep 2005 17:13 GMT
> We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
> be excluded.

...and one for you Mark that picks up when you are mindlessly spouting
the Con Med party-line...and evidencing no interest in what actually
occurs outside the world of white-coated professionals...
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 22:02 GMT
>>We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
>>be excluded.
>
> ...and one for you Mark that picks up when you are mindlessly spouting
> the Con Med party-line...and evidencing no interest in what actually
> occurs outside the world of white-coated professionals...

You seem very familiar with the men in the white coats...

http://tinyurl.com/8ze2c
Rich - 24 Sep 2005 22:25 GMT
>>>We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
>>>be excluded.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8ze2c

LOL! I had forgotten that one. It must be from the early sixties.

Alas, the "white coats" are gone the way of crisp white nurses' dresses and
caps. They're not even called "orderlies" anymore. They're "mental health
assistants," and they dress just like the patients. The only way you can
tell them apart is the name tag and the big wad of keys.

;o)  Rich
Tim Campbell - 25 Sep 2005 21:35 GMT
> > ...and one for you Mark that picks up when you are mindlessly spouting
> > the Con Med party-line...and evidencing no interest in what actually
> > occurs outside the world of white-coated professionals...
>
> You seem very familiar with the men in the white coats...


That's pretty funny Mark. What grade did you say you're in?
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 22:40 GMT
>>>...and one for you Mark that picks up when you are mindlessly spouting
>>>the Con Med party-line...and evidencing no interest in what actually
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>  
> That's pretty funny Mark. What grade did you say you're in?

I apologize for using humor to show how absurd you are.

I have often wondered what aspect of altie med destroys the humor
centers of the brain?
Tim Campbell - 25 Sep 2005 22:55 GMT
> I have often wondered what aspect of altie med destroys the humor
> centers of the brain?

What do you mean?...I'm the one who keeps telling you that you shd be
doing stand-up...
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 23:15 GMT
>>I have often wondered what aspect of altie med destroys the humor
>>centers of the brain?
>
> What do you mean?...I'm the one who keeps telling you that you shd be
> doing stand-up...

I understand that you want a career on the stage...one is leaving in 5
minutes.
Tim Campbell - 25 Sep 2005 22:55 GMT
> I have often wondered what aspect of altie med destroys the humor
> centers of the brain?

What do you mean?...I'm the one who keeps telling you that you shd be
doing stand-up...
LadyLollipop - 24 Sep 2005 23:59 GMT
>>  >
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> We could use an automatic bullshit detector, but, you and your ilk would
> be excluded.

Ahh, Mark is humor challenged.
Rich - 25 Sep 2005 00:09 GMT
>>>  >
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Ahh, Mark is humor challenged.

I've known pit bull dogs with more appreciation for a good joke than you,
Jan. But I do get a kick out of your Daffy Duck impersonations.  ;o)  Rich
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 22:40 GMT
>>>>I am sure that Petey is equally pleasant in person.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ahh, Mark is humor challenged.

According to Timmy Campbell, I am a riot.
Orac - 24 Sep 2005 18:17 GMT
> > "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> with him. If you take him to task for illogical, or lack of facts, then
> you are "pharmablogger" and are inherently a liar.

Yes, it's a combination of two well known logical fallacies known as
"poisoning the well" or "guilt by association." See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_poisoningwell
.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

BTW, the name of the "poisoning the well" fallacy comes from the
medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns
and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a
plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many,
many Jews.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

Rich.@. - 24 Sep 2005 18:51 GMT
>BTW, the name of the "poisoning the well" fallacy comes from the
>medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns
>and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a
>plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many,
>many Jews.

I wonder if Jan Drew started this myth in a previous life.
Cue Jan to call me a liar because the idea of previous lives is a
product of Satan.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

Best defense to logic is ignorance
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 22:03 GMT
>>>"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many,
> many Jews.

Now I know why Jan likes it so much. Must be genetic.
LadyLollipop - 25 Sep 2005 00:10 GMT
<snip off topic garbage>

>>>>"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>>>industry to post here.  His "evidence" is nothing more that his own
>>>>opinion.
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 22:42 GMT
> <snip off topic garbage>

Demonstrating the fallaciousness of Petey's bullshit is not off topic.

>>> It is not about "evidence" in the slightest. Petey came up with this
>>> as a pre-emptive ad hominem to conveniently discredit anyone who
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_poisoningwell
>> .htm
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

>>>>>"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>>>>industry to post here.  His "evidence" is nothing more that his own
>>>>>opinion.
LadyLollipop - 25 Sep 2005 00:08 GMT
>> > "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>> with him. If you take him to task for illogical, or lack of facts, then
>> you are "pharmablogger" and are inherently a liar.

<snip off topic garbage>
Rich - 25 Sep 2005 00:11 GMT
>>> > "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>>
> <snip off topic garbage>

Yes, an anti-semite like you would want to hide facts like that. Sad that.
Signature


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Orac - 25 Sep 2005 20:47 GMT
> >> > "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> >
> <snip off topic garbage>

Restore on-topic comments (Jan doesn't like to face the truth):

Yes, it's a combination of two well known logical fallacies known as
"poisoning the well" or "guilt by association." See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_poisoningwell
.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

BTW, the name of the "poisoning the well" fallacy comes from the
medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns
and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a
plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many,
many Jews.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

LadyLollipop - 25 Sep 2005 22:02 GMT
<respin off topic garbage>

>> >> > "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>> >
>> <snip off topic garbage>
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 22:43 GMT
> <respin off topic garbage>

restored:

Restore on-topic comments (Jan doesn't like to face the truth):

Yes, it's a combination of two well known logical fallacies known as
"poisoning the well" or "guilt by association." See:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_poisoningwell
.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

BTW, the name of the "poisoning the well" fallacy comes from the
medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns
and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a
plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many,
many Jews.

Jan cannot handle logic and facts, since they confuse her.

>>>>>>"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>>>>
>>><snip off topic garbage>
Orac - 23 Sep 2005 03:58 GMT
> > ...>
> > > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
> isn't equivalent to standard blogging.

In other words, you try to define that blogging to be whatever you say
it is. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

>I never refer to the newsgroup
> as a "blog."  The irony about your assertion that I've called others
> stupid is the fact that pharma bloggers often "play stupid" in order to
> ensnare well-meaning posters in useless debate.  Whatever works, right
> HCN?

The irony of your assertion is that you preemptively smear anyone who
criticizes alternative medicine as a "pharma blogger" without providing
a shred of evidence to support your assertion. Oh, wait. That's not
ironic of you. Just pathetic.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

PeterB - 23 Sep 2005 21:24 GMT
> > > ...>
> > > > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> In other words, you try to define that blogging to be whatever you say
> it is. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

The point is that you spew garbage in favor of allopathic methods
regardless of the facts.  Who cares what descriptives are used for it?
And your response itself is evidence that you're exactly what I say.

> >I never refer to the newsgroup
> > as a "blog."  The irony about your assertion that I've called others
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> a shred of evidence to support your assertion. Oh, wait. That's not
> ironic of you. Just pathetic.

I've had several debates here with those who disagree with my views,
with no thought of them being associated with industry.  And besides, I
don't define your behaviour, you do.  Your team thinks that you operate
here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
are over...

PeterB
Rich - 23 Sep 2005 21:33 GMT
>> > > ...>
>> > > > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
> are over...

What a hoot! You think you've outed a conspiracy? Your conjecture is not
believable to even naive anti-science loons like Lollipop and Pizza Girl who
have conspicuously not come to your defense.
Signature


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

LadyLollipop - 24 Sep 2005 03:12 GMT
<snip the harasser>.

<snip the belittling>

<snip the *rganized medicine* repeated jargon>

>>> > I explained my use of the term in the original post, noting that it
>>> > isn't equivalent to standard blogging.

>>> >I never refer to the newsgroup
>>> > as a "blog."  The irony about your assertion that I've called others
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
>> are over...
PeterB - 24 Sep 2005 05:25 GMT
> <snip the harasser>.
>
> <snip the belittling>
>
> <snip the *organized medicine* repeated jargon>

Good approach, Jan, I like your style.  

Peter
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 13:22 GMT
>><snip the harasser>.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Good approach, Jan, I like your style.  

Of course you would say that. However, when Jan posts her bigotry, you
remain silent. Hmmm...I smell a hypocrite.

The Three Monkeys style of "see no facts, hear no facts, speak no facts"
is exactly the style that you, Jan, and your ilk use.
PeterB - 24 Sep 2005 17:52 GMT
> >><snip the harasser>.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Of course you would say that. However, when Jan posts her bigotry, you
> remain silent. Hmmm...I smell a hypocrite.

I'm not here to critique anyone's personal views or social graces.  The
purpose of mha is to talk about approaches in natural medicine. You and
your team have a different agenda, so feel free to focus on
personalities and other distractions.  

PeterB
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 22:07 GMT
>>>><snip the harasser>.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I'm not here to critique anyone's personal views or social graces.

However, you just did. Cue Petey to redefine personal views or social
graces.

> The
> purpose of mha is to talk about approaches in natural medicine.

Not really. The purpose of mha is to discuss all aspects of alternative
medicine, natural or unnatural. This would include Zappers, analysis of
the claims of alternative practitioners and criticisms of their actions
when warranted.

You and
> your team have a different agenda, so feel free to focus on
> personalities and other distractions.  

You do have that backwards.

Examine a thread where one of us starts a discussion on some point, and
how Jan, et al, derails that by the Liar! Liar! Game, or some other
bullshit.
Mark Probert - 24 Sep 2005 02:41 GMT
>>>>...>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> The point is that you spew garbage in favor of allopathic methods
> regardless of the facts.  Who cares what descriptives are used for it?

You would not know a fact if it were inserted by a proctoscope.

> And your response itself is evidence that you're exactly what I say.

Nice use of the pre-emptive ad hominem, just like I said.

>>>I never refer to the newsgroup
>>>as a "blog."  The irony about your assertion that I've called others
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
> are over...

Paranoia mixed with megalomania...Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

> PeterB
Orac - 24 Sep 2005 18:20 GMT
> > > > ...>
> > > > > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> regardless of the facts.  Who cares what descriptives are used for it?
> And your response itself is evidence that you're exactly what I say.

Ah, a very obvious "heads I win tails you lose." If I deny being a
"pharma shill," then you declare that I must in fact be one because
that's what you would expect a "pharma shill" to say. If I remain
silent, then your assertions of pharma bloggery remain unanswered and
again you declare victory.

A nice ploy, but very obvious, old bean.

Oh, and BTW, I've actually found you a real live pharma blogger:

http://pharmablogger.blogspot.com/

Oh, wait. He's not what you've claimed, is he?

> > >I never refer to the newsgroup
> > > as a "blog."  The irony about your assertion that I've called others
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I've had several debates here with those who disagree with my views,
> with no thought of them being associated with industry.

You're being disingenuous. Your whole "pharma blogger" post tells me
that you define whomever you please as a "pharma shill." If they
disagree too strongly with altie claims, you label them a "pharma
blogger."

>And besides, I
> don't define your behaviour, you do.

As do you, my paranoid and obvious opponent, with your transparent
attempt at pre-emptive ad hominem, also known as "poisoning the well" or
"guilt by association," both logical fallacies.

>Your team thinks that you operate
> here transparently, and perhaps you have in the past, but those days
> are over...

"My team"? Do tell. What "team" am I supposedly on?

Really, you do have an inflated opinion of yourself. Sparring with you
is merely an amusing and occasional diversion that is rapidly becoming
tiresome, given your bone-headedness. Nothing more.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

Clinton - 24 Sep 2005 22:02 GMT
> Ah, a very obvious "heads I win tails you lose." If I deny being a
> "pharma shill," then you declare that I must in fact be one because
> that's what you would expect a "pharma shill" to say. If I remain
> silent, then your assertions of pharma bloggery remain unanswered and
> again you declare victory.

If I may, interrupt...I think what PeterB is getting at is not
that if anyone denies being a "pharmablogger" they are, but they
act like a pharmablogger. I.E. if you walk like a duck you are
a duck.

Now just for the sake of argument, let's ask this question. Suppose
Agent X shows up, a pharmablogger on mha. Agent X works for the pharma
companies and posts in such a way to support that agenda. How would you
interpret the posts of a few individuals here as being substantial
different from what "Agent X" would post. If you say there is a
difference I would be curios to know "precisely" what you think it
would be. If there is not, but you still say the posters are not
pharmabloggers, which could theoretically be true..., then you at least
have to admit that there is no difference between what they post and
what a pharmablogger would say averaged over a large number of posts.

As for denial arguments, I suppose a good example of that would
be the Mcarthy trials. Namely, an individual was arbitrarly accused of
being a communist. If the individual said nothing then surely they were
a communist, and if they denied it, then of of course, a member of the
communist party would deny being associated with the communist party.
True enough! However if such an individual constantly published
articles about the weakness of democracy and the wiseness of community
property and the fallicies of capitalism, and was even a member of the
communist party (while still denying being a communist),  wouldn't that
actually be a fair indication that they may actually be a communist as
opposed to any self-evident conclusions drawn based only on their
denials of being in the communist party?

> A nice ploy, but very obvious, old bean.
>
> Oh, and BTW, I've actually found you a real live pharma blogger:
Orac - 23 Sep 2005 03:54 GMT
> ...>
> > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> was to say he was "right" and that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid
> and a "PharmaBlogger".  Sound familiar?

Very familiar, unfortunately.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

Tim Campbell - 20 Sep 2005 06:14 GMT
> It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
> Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
> know what a weblog is? What a maroon.

Orac. What's a maroon? Is it like what the characters on the show
"Lost" are?
JohnDoe - 20 Sep 2005 07:57 GMT
>>It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
>>Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
>>know what a weblog is? What a maroon.
>
> Orac. What's a maroon? Is it like what the characters on the show
> "Lost" are?

I think it's from Elmer Fudd and he (Fudd) meant to say 'moron'.

'Be vewy quiwet, I'm hunting wabbits'.
David Wright - 21 Sep 2005 05:30 GMT
>>>It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
>>>Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I think it's from Elmer Fudd and he (Fudd) meant to say 'moron'.

No, it's by Bugs Bunny.  It's a deliberate mispronounciation of
"moron."

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
                                -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Orac - 23 Sep 2005 03:59 GMT
> > It's also utterly idiotic, at least in context of Usenet. Posting to a
> > Usenet newsgroup is NOT the same thing as blogging. Does PeterB even
> > know what a weblog is? What a maroon.
>
> Orac. What's a maroon? Is it like what the characters on the show
> "Lost" are?

Don't you mean "lagoon"? ;-)

Oh, wait. You mean marooned.

Obviously you aren't a fan of Bugs Bunny, are you? Otherwise you would
have gotten the allusion immediately.

Signature

Orac        |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
           | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
           | of observation."
           |                   http://oracknows.blogspot.com

PeterB - 20 Sep 2005 02:25 GMT
> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
> > Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
> and merely a figment of your imagination, at best. At worst, it reflects
> severe underlying parnoid pathology.

I don't post this material for you or the other pharma bloggers.  The
fact you have spent so much time rebutting me is telling, however.  And
readers will decide for themselves based on what they see or don't see.

> Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
> are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be
> "outed" for expressing their views.

I've had several disagreements with others here, discussing such things
as the paleo diet, iron requirements, cancer etiology, etc.  I never
suggested those people were Pharma Bloggers, yet clearly they saw
things differently than me.  Their arguments have invariably been more
well reasoned than yours, in fact.  If I wanted to discourage
legitimate debate about these health issues, I wouldn't engage in
debating them, at length, myself.  And I refer to you as a Pharma
Blogger only because you demonstrate several of the patterns in the
list.

> I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head.

That discussion isn't relevant to m.h.a. and I'm not here to discuss
it. I realize it's YOUR purpose to do whatever it takes to distract
from medical tesimony at odds with the script.  The irony is that
silence on the part of our resident Pharma Bloggers on THAT issue helps
identify YOUR agenda.

> I find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.

You're back to the comedy routine, I see...

PB
Mark Probert - 20 Sep 2005 14:16 GMT
>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
>>>Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 83 lines]
>
> I don't post this material for you or the other pharma bloggers.  

I know, You post it for yourself, so that you can feel impotent.

The
> fact you have spent so much time rebutting me is telling, however.  And
> readers will decide for themselves based on what they see or don't see.

Do not flatter yourself by thinking that refuting your bullshit takes
any mental effort on anyones part.

>>Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
>>are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Blogger only because you demonstrate several of the patterns in the
> list.

Yes, Petey, a list as defined by you. When you first infested this
newgroup, I attempted to discuss some issues with you, and it quickly
became obvious that you were here to preach. When called on your
tactics, you created this mythical character of a 'pharmablogger' to
conveniently dismiss those who challenge you.

>>I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head.
>
> That discussion isn't relevant to m.h.a. and I'm not here to discuss
> it.

I recall that that was the excuse used in another time and another place.

I realize it's YOUR purpose to do whatever it takes to distract
> from medical tesimony at odds with the script.  

What script? Oh, that's right, another figment of YOUR imagination.

The irony is that
> silence on the part of our resident Pharma Bloggers on THAT issue helps
> identify YOUR agenda.

My agenda is the truth.

>>I find this to be quite typical of those who promote alternative medicine.
>
> You're back to the comedy routine, I see...

Not at all. You fit the moldy mold.
PeterB - 20 Sep 2005 15:32 GMT
> >>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
> >>>Monopolies
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
>
> I know, You post it for yourself, so that you can feel impotent.

If what I write is the truth, the message is what's important.

> The
> > fact you have spent so much time rebutting me is telling, however.  And
> > readers will decide for themselves based on what they see or don't see.
>
> Do not flatter yourself by thinking that refuting your bullshit takes
> any mental effort on anyones part.

You could never flatter me, Mark, because I don't respect you.

> >>Post such as this, where those who do not agree with your point of view
> >>are attacked add to the climate of fear where people expect to be
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> newgroup, I attempted to discuss some issues with you, and it quickly
> became obvious that you were here to preach.

You and your fellow pharma bloggers have defined your own behaviour,
I'm just exposing your motivations.  As for your attempt to discuss
issues with me, I haven't seen you engage in an honest discussion with
anyone.

> When called on your
> tactics, you created this mythical character of a 'pharmablogger' to
> conveniently dismiss those who challenge you.

Actually, I challeneged you to expose me in any way you can; when you
pretend to do that, it becomes more clear why you are here.

> >>I note how you remain totally silent when bigotry rears its ugly head.
> >
> > That discussion isn't relevant to m.h.a. and I'm not here to discuss
> > it.
>
> I recall that that was the excuse used in another time and another place.

It's no excuse, it's "OT" for this newsgroup.

> I realize it's YOUR purpose to do whatever it takes to distract
> > from medical tesimony at odds with the script.
>
> What script? Oh, that's right, another figment of YOUR imagination.

Is that why you keep rebutting my claims?

> The irony is that
> > silence on the part of our resident Pharma Bloggers on THAT issue helps
> > identify YOUR agenda.
>
> My agenda is the truth.

The truth about profits.  

PeterB
Tim Campbell - 25 Sep 2005 22:05 GMT
> My agenda is the truth.

Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
deniers.
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 22:44 GMT
>>My agenda is the truth.
>
> Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
> deniers.

Suspect what you wish. I live right on the water and have a close
relationship with the environment. To me, there is very singificant
evidence of global warming.
Tim Campbell - 25 Sep 2005 22:52 GMT
> > Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
> > deniers.
>
> Suspect what you wish. I live right on the water and have a close
> relationship with the environment. To me, there is very significant
> evidence of global warming.

Clearly you are speaking of experiential evidence. Interesting that you
find such evidence sufficient on one sphere yet you rabidly denouce the
same type of evidence in another sphere (alt med).
Happy Dog - 25 Sep 2005 23:06 GMT
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
>> > Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
>> > deniers.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Clearly you are speaking of experiential evidence.

How so?

moo
Tim Campbell - 26 Sep 2005 00:24 GMT
> "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
> >> > Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> moo

>> *I LIVE* right on the water and *HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH* the >> environment. *TO ME*, there is very significant
>> evidence of global warming.

This is the language of experiential reasoning.
Mark Probert - 26 Sep 2005 00:32 GMT
>>"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> This is the language of experiential reasoning.

Which I expanded upon.
Tim Campbell - 26 Sep 2005 00:56 GMT
> >>"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Which I expanded upon.
Tim Campbell - 26 Sep 2005 01:03 GMT
> >>>*I LIVE* right on the water and *HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH* the >> environment. *TO ME*, there is very significant
> >>>evidence of global warming.
> >
> > This is the language of experiential reasoning.
>
> Which I expanded upon.

Expanded indeed. You took language that was distinctly subjective in
nature and objectivized it.
Mark Probert - 26 Sep 2005 14:49 GMT
>>>>>*I LIVE* right on the water and *HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH* the >> environment. *TO ME*, there is very significant
>>>>>evidence of global warming.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Expanded indeed. You took language that was distinctly subjective in
> nature and objectivized it.

Common sense coupled with securing factual information from multipe
sources, not merely a try-it-you'll-like-it approach.
Happy Dog - 26 Sep 2005 09:03 GMT
"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net>
>> >> > Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> This is the language of experiential reasoning.

Nope.  Read his response.  Life on the shore is incidental.  Everybody has a
close relationship with the environment.

moo

moo
Tim Campbell - 26 Sep 2005 17:42 GMT
> Life on the shore is incidental.  Everybody has a
> close relationship with the environment.

Indeed and in this instance Mark implicitly admitted that it was this
life-input
that was the basis of his convictions about global warming...
Mark Probert - 25 Sep 2005 23:22 GMT
>>>Mark, I would suspect you and your crowd are also global warming
>>>deniers.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> find such evidence sufficient on one sphere yet you rabidly denouce the
> same type of evidence in another sphere (alt med).

Actually, I base my opinion on several factors and listening to a friend
who is an atmospheric physicist. He has suggested several readings, etc.
over the years, and, I love picking his brain, which is very fertile
ground. While his expertise is in ozone depletion, his field touches on
global warming, and, I use common sense to listen and evaluate what he
suggests.

I have been an "environmentalist" for many years...my first exposure to
these ideas was generated by meeting the solitary ranger at the then
Arches National Monument in Utah. Later, I learned that "Ed" was Edward
Abbey who became well known from his first book, Desert Solitaire. I
have read most of his other books. One of