 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / October 2005Vitamin Survey
Hey! My name is Christian. I am in an entrepreneurship class at the Univ. of San Diego. We are conducting 2 surveys. Combined, they will take 2 mins of your time. Please help us out, thank you for your support in advance. I know your time is valuable. Survey 1 - http://surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=721881408452 Survey 2 - http://surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=979911432990 - Christian > Hey! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Christian Christian, this is a terrible idea. For myself, I wouldn't participate because your website might be a virus trap, or worse. In terms of the make-up of this newsgroup, it's a stretch to say that participants here are representative of a meaningful demographic. We do have legitimate participants (and probably lots of legitimate readers), but many here are industry reps who denigrate natural medicine and would love to take this opportunity to skew your stats. Others here are promoting products they sell for profit. If you are for real, it's just my opinion that you should consider another venue. PeterB >> Hey! >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >products they sell for profit. If you are for real, it's just my >opinion that you should consider another venue. Christian, if you're still reading this, please understand that PeterB is a paranoid who thinks that most people who disagree with him (and there are many such people) are being paid to do so. He is a sad figure but not particularly important. However, he's right that this newsgroup is not a randomly selected population, and so any results you get are not likely to be valid. -- 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 >>> Hey! >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > there are many such people) are being paid to do so. He is a sad > figure but not particularly important. Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is a hyprocrite who states: When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it generates comments about your own Then he proceeds to whine. He also is terribly arrogant, as you can see, he thinks he can tell others just who is paraniod and who is sad and who is important. Let us know if you had any vitamin that would help with that problem. I will gladly pay for them to help David with his problem. Jan Drew > However, he's right that this newsgroup is not a randomly selected > population, and so any results you get are not likely to be valid. > > -- David Wright > >>> Hey! > >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Jan Drew Gosh, Lollipop is judging people again. David made two statements; that PeteyB is paranoid as evidenced by his assumption that people who disagree with him are paid to do so, and an expression of opinion: that he is sad and unimportant. Lollipop's various comments on others have included that particularly nice one about lying being second nature to Jews, calling someone a "Jewboy", and "I think you homo experience has screwed up your brain". Lovely. She calls herself a christian. Cathy > > However, he's right that this newsgroup is not a randomly selected > > population, and so any results you get are not likely to be valid. > > > > -- David Wright >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >a hyprocrite Is this thread about David Wright? >Sadly, you want to make every topic personal. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > >a hyprocrite > > Is this thread about David Wright? Your hypocrisy is noted. It's not about me either, but I see you didn't critique David when he personally attacked me. PeterB >>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Your hypocrisy is noted. It's not about me either, but I see you > didn't critique David when he personally attacked me. Like I told you before, your entire 'pharmablogger' manure is a pre-emptive ad hominem. You are reaping what you sowed. > >>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > >>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Like I told you before, your entire 'pharmablogger' manure is a > pre-emptive ad hominem. You are reaping what you sowed. Mark should know the meaning of ad hominem more than anyone. The fact he doesn't is ironic, considering he uses them all the time. PeterB >>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>>>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Mark should know the meaning of ad hominem more than anyone. The fact > he doesn't is ironic, considering he uses them all the time. I see....do you know what an ad hominem is....let's examine you: You claim that people who take you to task are 'pharmabloggers' and describe them in most uncharitable terms. You attempt to discredit them for who they are, not what the substance is of their message. Yes, you do use a pre-emptive ad hominem. Now, let's examine me.... I discredit people based on what they say, and, sometimes, when relevant, who they are, e.g. a scientologist criticizing psychiatry or pharmacotherapy. > >>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > >>>>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > describe them in most uncharitable terms. You attempt to discredit them > for who they are, not what the substance is of their message. The people I take to task are those who purposely lie in order to sell drugs and other allopathic products. I've disagreed with a number of other posters who were not pharma bloggers. If your team would pipe down for 3 minutes a day, you might hear more from them. Oh, sorry, I forgot -- that's the whole point, to bury those posters so they go away. Has that been working? > Yes, you do use a pre-emptive ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem when used to distract from a comment the other poster wants to avoid. You and your team engage in this routinely. > Now, let's examine me.... > > I discredit people based on what they say, and, sometimes, when > relevant, who they are, e.g. a scientologist criticizing psychiatry or > pharmacotherapy. Sure, whatever you say. PeterB >>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>>>>>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > It's only an ad hominem when used to distract from a comment the other > poster wants to avoid. You and your team engage in this routinely. Not really. In fact, not at all. We focus on your ideations and when you are backed into a corner, you whimper "Pharmablogger". >>Now, let's examine me.... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sure, whatever you say. About time you wised up. > >>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > >>>>>>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Not really. In fact, not at all. We focus on your ideations and when you > are backed into a corner, you whimper "Pharmablogger". Nope. You and your teammates have never backed me into a corner. > >>Now, let's examine me.... > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > About time you wised up. Don't quit your day job (whatever you claim that is.) Oh, but wait, that's obviously what you are doing here posting all day on the newsgroups on behalf of industry. Therefore, please *DO* quit your day job. Ok, ok. Just forget trying to be funny, then. PeterB >>>>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>>>>>>>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > newsgroups on behalf of industry. Therefore, please *DO* quit your day > job. Ok, ok. Just forget trying to be funny, then. I hope they can implant you with a sense of humor from a cadaver. It would be an improvement. >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >> >a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Your hypocrisy is noted. It's not about me either, but I see you >didn't critique David when he personally attacked me. You are quite correct that I am selective in my criticism. Of course I can point out that you selectively criticize me while giving Jan Drew a complete pass when she attacks/stalks me. In fact you say I get what I deserve. Well I think you got what you deserved when David criticized you. It is ironic that PeterB accuses me of hypocrisy for engaging in the same kind of selective criticism that he engages in. Aloha, Rich >PeterB ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > >> >a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I deserve. Well I think you got what you deserved when David > criticized you. Jan's repudiation of your statements is defensive. If anyone reads your posting history, they will see that you use distortions to win your arguments. Your campaign to discredit posters in order to debunk the content of their posts is rather transparent. > It is ironic that PeterB accuses me of hypocrisy for engaging in the > same kind of selective criticism that he engages in. If I were to critique Jan, it would be to tell her that she spends too much time down in the weeds, where you try to keep her (and where I am now), instead of staying on message. My criticism of you is for attempting to distort the facts and discredit posters unfairly. Hypocritical? Nope. Selective? You bet. PeterB >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >> >a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Your hypocrisy is noted. It's not about me either, but I see you >didn't critique David when he personally attacked me. Plenty of personal attacks to go around, bub. Yours, mine, everyone's. I hope you won't go so far as to claim you don't do 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 >>> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>> >a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Plenty of personal attacks to go around, bub. Yours, mine, >everyone's. I hope you won't go so far as to claim you don't do it. Cue Peter to say that he only does it when provoked. You see if Peter or Jan personally attack someone it is justified. When someone attacks Peter or Jan personally then it is an inappropriate personal attack. Peter and Jan are selective. The rest of us are hypocrites. Pathologic narcissism at its finest. Aloha, Rich > -- 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 ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>>>>a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Peter and Jan are selective. The rest of us are hypocrites. Pathologic > narcissism at its finest. Exactly. It is all part of the Altie need to be a victim. They, and they alone, are the victims of evil conspiracies, liars, atheists, Jews, people who pray to Saints, BIGpharma, littlePHARMA, the FDA, the FTC, Stephen Barrett, you, me, anyone named Peter with a website, and, the newspaper boy who never gets the paper onto the front steps. In their "minds" they have to be vicitms, as they have no other recourse to show what they shill is valid. Thus, they replace facts with fantasies. I was up early this morning and caught one of Kevin Trudeau's infomercials while "taking of business". (It works better than a high fiber diet). I tried to keep count of the number of times he uttered something showing that he is a victim. I could not count that fast. >>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >>>>>>Wright is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Cue Peter to say <snip> > Exactly. <snip> What others have to say about the "cue" bit. From: drkulacz@optonline.net Real mature. You could not possibly have the title of Dr. That could not be possible with a suggesstion like "cue the spammers to fill your mailbox". That type of behavior is for children. Silly me thinking that you were a dentist with a post like that. >>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >>>>>>>Wright is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <snip> Jan snips what she cannot handle: Exactly. It is all part of the Altie need to be a victim. They, and they alone, are the victims of evil conspiracies, liars, atheists, Jews, people who pray to Saints, BIGpharma, littlePHARMA, the FDA, the FTC, Stephen Barrett, you, me, anyone named Peter with a website, and, the newspaper boy who never gets the paper onto the front steps. In their "minds" they have to be vicitms, as they have no other recourse to show what they shill is valid. Thus, they replace facts with fantasies. I was up early this morning and caught one of Kevin Trudeau's infomercials while "taking of business". (It works better than a high fiber diet). I tried to keep count of the number of times he uttered something showing that he is a victim. I could not count that fast. >>>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >>>>>>>>Wright is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> <snip> Mark Probert lies repeatedly As everyone can see, poor Richard H Jacobson is still stalking. Note he didn't say: Is this thread about PeterB? That's because it is he who is another hypocrite It is noted, David ONLY questioned PeterB, NOT Richard H Jacobson. I am no longer wasting my time reading the stalker's posts, but I can bet, he left off the rest of my post. Poor ate up guy. What others have to say about the "cue" bit. From: drkul...@optonline.net Real mature. You could not possibly have the title of Dr. That could not be possible with a suggesstion like "cue the spammers to fill your mailbox". That type of behavior is for children. Silly me thinking that you were a dentist with a post like that >>>>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >>>>>>>>>Wright is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > Mark Probert lies repeatedly Only according to you. You are addressed here: Jan snips what she cannot handle: Exactly. It is all part of the Altie need to be a victim. They, and they alone, are the victims of evil conspiracies, liars, atheists, Jews, people who pray to Saints, BIGpharma, littlePHARMA, the FDA, the FTC, Stephen Barrett, you, me, anyone named Peter with a website, and, the newspaper boy who never gets the paper onto the front steps. In their "minds" they have to be vicitms, as they have no other recourse to show what they shill is valid. Thus, they replace facts with fantasies. I was up early this morning and caught one of Kevin Trudeau's infomercials while "taking of business". (It works better than a high fiber diet). I tried to keep count of the number of times he uttered something showing that he is a victim. I could not count that fast. >>>>>>>>>>Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >>>>>>>>>>Wright is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Only according to you. Wrong. Your lies have been proven, over and over. > "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:mFs6f.17440$Hm3.7575@fe09.lga... >>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:vs66f.13852$1X1.7265@fe12.lga... >>>> Rich.@. wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is >>>>>>>>> a hyprocrite >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > Mark Probert lies repeatedly Only according to you. You are addressed here: Jan snips what she cannot handle: Exactly. It is all part of the Altie need to be a victim. They, and they alone, are the victims of evil conspiracies, liars, atheists, Jews, people who pray to Saints, BIGpharma, littlePHARMA, the FDA, the FTC, Stephen Barrett, you, me, anyone named Peter with a website, and, the newspaper boy who never gets the paper onto the front steps. In their "minds" they have to be vicitms, as they have no other recourse to show what they shill is valid. Thus, they replace facts with fantasies. I was up early this morning and caught one of Kevin Trudeau's infomercials while "taking of business". (It works better than a high fiber diet). I tried to keep count of the number of times he uttered something showing that he is a victim. I could not count that fast. >>> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >>> >Wright is >>> >a hyprocrite >>> >>> Is this thread about David Wright? As every can see, poor Richard H jacobson is still stalking. Note he didn't say: Is this thread about PeterB? That's because it is he who is another hypocrite. >>Your hypocrisy is noted. It's not about me either, but I see you >>didn't critique David when he personally attacked me. > > Plenty of personal attacks to go around, bub. Yours, mine, > everyone's. I hope you won't go so far as to claim you don't do it. It is noted, David ONLY questioned PeterB, NOT Richard H Jacobson. I am no longer wasting my time reading the stalker's posts, but I can bet, he left off the rest of my post. Poor ate up guy. > -- 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 >That's because it is he who is another hypocrite. >Judger. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >>> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David > >>> >Wright is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I am no longer wasting my time reading the stalker's posts, Sure you're not. Just wasting even more time replying to them. Lordy, for someone with so much practise, you don't even lie well. Cathy > but I can bet, > he left off the rest of my post. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >> I am no longer wasting my time reading the stalker's posts, > >Sure you're not. Just wasting even more time replying to them. Lordy, >for someone with so much practise, you don't even lie well. For a pathologic liar she sure sucks at it. Usually Jan announces that she has kill filed people to give her plausible deniability. I don't recall her ever saying she was just not going to read certain individual's posts. Jan's MO is to ignore directly replying to certain posters but if someone responds to these posters she is quick to make a personal attack. Just watch. Aloha, Rich >Cathy ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > >> >a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Plenty of personal attacks to go around, bub. Yours, mine, > everyone's. I hope you won't go so far as to claim you don't do it. Claims that a poster is delusional, paranoid, or psychotic, are personal even if the accusing party believes it. It's always an ad hominem, as well. Nothing a delusional, paranoid, or psychotic poster says has credibility. By contrast, the assertion that people are here in support of industry, whether true or not, doesn't mean everything they say is false. In fact, it merely attributes their words to a professional affiliation, which by definition isn't "personal." PeterB >> >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >Wright is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >personal even if the accusing party believes it. It's always an ad >hominem, as well. Not if it's true. >Nothing a delusional, paranoid, or psychotic poster >says has credibility. That's not true. It depends on the area. A paranoid can be perfectly reasonable as long as you stay away from the sensitive area; for example, someone who thinks the CIA has mind control chips in his head could still have a perfectly sensible discussion about football. Just not about mind control chips. >By contrast, the assertion that people are here in support of >industry, whether true or not, doesn't mean everything they say is >false. I, for one, have never asserted that everything you say is false, merely that your charming "pharma blogger" delusions are, well, delusions. >In fact, it merely attributes their words to a professional >affiliation, which by definition isn't "personal." It may not be personal, but as with your example of an accusation of paranoia, it colors everything they post, now doesn't 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 > >> >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David > >Wright is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Not if it's true. It doesn't matter, an ad hominem doesn't have to be false. Check the Oxford dictionary. An ad hominem is just a device used in debate to distract from an opponent's argument by focusing instead on the other's personal attributes. > >Nothing a delusional, paranoid, or psychotic poster > >says has credibility. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could still have a perfectly sensible discussion about football. Just > not about mind control chips. True enough in a one-on-one, but in a public forum where ad hominems are pejorative, a person who isn't paranoid can be denounced just as effectively as one who is. And regardless of the truth, that's the purpose of the ad hominem. Anyone "buying into" a personal attack is more easily prejudiced against someone whose mental state has been questioned. > >By contrast, the assertion that people are here in support of > >industry, whether true or not, doesn't mean everything they say is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > merely that your charming "pharma blogger" delusions are, well, > delusions. Another ipso facto. When does saying it make it so? > >In fact, it merely attributes their words to a professional > >affiliation, which by definition isn't "personal." > > It may not be personal, but as with your example of an accusation of > paranoia, it colors everything they post, now doesn't it? Actually, it doesn't change anything regarding what you post, unless what I post alters what you say. That's where things get interesting... peterB >> >> >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David >> >Wright is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >distract from an opponent's argument by focusing instead on the other's >personal attributes. But if one of the other's personal attributes is that the other is nuts, that's relevant to the discussion. If you want to engage in threads that don't involve you accusing other people of being "pharma bloggers," then I won't accuse you of paranoia, at least in those threads. Since you generally feel quite free to accuse others of being paid agents, I feel equally free to call you mentally ill. >> >Nothing a delusional, paranoid, or psychotic poster >> >says has credibility. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >are pejorative, a person who isn't paranoid can be denounced just as >effectively as one who is. Denounced, perhaps, but where's the evidence. I've seen plenty of posters who initially seemed quite reasonable -- it was only later on that they hoisted the jolly roger. For example, I always thought Gohde was just an obnoxious a.shole -- it's only in the last couple of months that I also found out he was a flaming racist as well. Now, that doesn't mean that everything he says about "natural health" is wrong, but it does cause me to realize that he's not particularly rational, and thus causes me to look at any of his claims with a more jaundiced eye. >> >By contrast, the assertion that people are here in support of >> >industry, whether true or not, doesn't mean everything they say is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Another ipso facto. When does saying it make it so? It doesn't. However, your total lack of evidence (other than the supposed "patterns" you observe with your all-seeing eye, kind of like Sauron, I suppose) does put your own conclusions into question. -- 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 > >> >> >> >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David > >> >Wright is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > But if one of the other's personal attributes is that the other is > nuts, that's relevant to the discussion. Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any argument he makes, without meaningful discussion of his views -- that's an ad hominem. The point is, readers should arrive at such conclusions based on the content of an individual's writing, a fair discussion of differing views, and not pejoratives. The interesting thing about an ad hominem is that it isn't the name calling, it's the use of labeling to evade a meaningful debate. > If you want to engage in > threads that don't involve you accusing other people of being "pharma > bloggers," then I won't accuse you of paranoia, at least in those > threads. Since you generally feel quite free to accuse others of > being paid agents, I feel equally free to call you mentally ill. And it may not be an ad hominem to do that. If you legitimately debate the issues introduced, tacking "nut case" at the end of your post is really just name calling. Some language experts still consider it to be an ad hominem, since it personalizes the discussion and brings the mental faculties into question. But the main purpose of the ad hominem is to evade debating the issues fairly. > >> >Nothing a delusional, paranoid, or psychotic poster > >> >says has credibility. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > rational, and thus causes me to look at any of his claims with a more > jaundiced eye. Your frame of reference is so insular it leaves almost no room for debate. Many people believe Bill Bennet is racist, others don't. Having a "jaundiced eye" toward another person based on one thing you don't like about them is itself a prejudice. > >> >By contrast, the assertion that people are here in support of > >> >industry, whether true or not, doesn't mean everything they say is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > supposed "patterns" you observe with your all-seeing eye, kind of like > Sauron, I suppose) does put your own conclusions into question. I like questions, it's how we get answers. As for evidence, human behaviour is the best evidence for motive there is. PeterB > Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public > forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ad hominem is that it isn't the name calling, it's the use of labeling > to evade a meaningful debate. Like calling people "pharmabloggers"????????????? Hmmm...you do make a point....one that I made to you..... BTW, as for GWB...I think he is far from nuts and is a very complicated person. One of his fundamental characteristics is a deep sense of personal loyalty, WHICH GOES BOTH WAYS. He may feel betrayed by his core constituency who caused Miers to withdraw, and slap them back with an impeccable middle of the road Constitutional scholar (there are several) who will be acceptable to the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. This IS going to be interesting. > > Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public > > forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Like calling people "pharmabloggers"????????????? *IF* I used that term to avoid engaging in discussion that would be true. But that isn't the case. If you want to think of it as name-calling, that's fine, but I disagree. "Pontificating Bullshitter," on the other hand, that's name calling. > Hmmm...you do make a point....one that I made to you..... The difference is that you use pejoratives that are personal. Pharma blogger, as I use the term, isn't personal. > BTW, as for GWB...I think he is far from nuts and is a very complicated > person. One of his fundamental characteristics is a deep sense of > personal loyalty, WHICH GOES BOTH WAYS. He may feel betrayed by his core > constituency who caused Miers to withdraw, and slap them back with an > impeccable middle of the road Constitutional scholar (there are several) > who will be acceptable to the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. Miers was simply a dumb idea. Bush must be falling apart. > This IS going to be interesting. yep. >> Like calling people "pharmabloggers"????????????? > >*IF* I used that term to avoid engaging in discussion that would be >true. But that isn't the case. What *is* the case is that you use the term in order to discredit the person's opinion. Your continued use of this ad hominem while discussing topics reveals you to be an insecure person who is incapable of using logic in making one's point. You must resort to gratuitous character assassination in order to invalidate opinions that differ from yours. For example you made a general statement that vaccinations are only 10-50% effective. When evidence was presented that chicken pox vaccines have close to 100% efficacy you simply ignore it and call the person a pharmablogger (sic). You are incapable of acknowledging that you may be incorrect when you gave such a low efficacy for vaccines because you are insecure. Cue Peter to change the subject to measles. Cue Peter to make an ad hominem proving how insecure he is. Just watch. Aloha, Rich Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >> Like calling people "pharmabloggers"????????????? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What *is* the case is that you use the term in order to discredit the > person's opinion. If that were true (it isn't), it means your arguments don't stand on their own merits to begin with. But my purpose in using the term is only to describe your behaviour, and that of others, here on mha. > Your continued use of this ad hominem ... If you check the Oxford dictionary, you'll see it doesn't meet the definition of that term. First, it isn't a personal characterization. Second, I don't use it to avoid debating your arguments. But if you want to call it an ad hominem, feel free -- it just reinforces that my observations have been right all along. > while > discussing topics reveals you to be an insecure person who is > incapable of using logic in making one's point... Interesting that cathy used this same angle in a post of hers the last few days. Is this an effort to psych me out using the word "insecure?" Not very interesting. > You must resort to > gratuitous character assassination in order to invalidate opinions > that differ from yours. I love other opinions, it makes me think. I wouldn't be here if everyone on mha thought exactly as I do. As for "gratuitous character assasinations," you're the expert in that area, not me. I guess that's why you don't permit your posts to be archived. I, on the other hand, would never prevent my posts from being archived. By the way, Rich, what exactly is it you're trying to protect with use of that feature? > For example you made a general statement that vaccinations are only > 10-50% effective. No, what I said is that, in the absence of adequate study data, we *don't know* whether vaccines are more than 10-50% effective. If the study data were available, we could argue the quality of the data. We can't even do that with regard to measles vaccine. > When evidence was presented that chicken pox > vaccines have close to 100% efficacy you simply ignore it and call the > person a pharmablogger (sic). I did respond. First, I stated that varicella vaccine isn't relevant to the debate about effectiveness (or safety) of measles vaccine (which had been the sole topic of discussion), since the two aren't interchangeable. Second, I said the quality of study design is especially important with regard to infectious disease. If such studies are not designed to evaluate or adjust for environmental factors predisposing to either infection or resistance, they can't establish a positive link between non-infection and vaccine. In other words, if susceptability to infectious disease can be linked to factors other than non-vaccination, we cannot say that all non-incidence of viral illness is linked to vaccine. > You are incapable of acknowledging that > you may be incorrect when you gave such a low efficacy for vaccines > because you are insecure. In the absence of proper science, we don't know what the numbers are, and it's my guess that MMR may be 50% effective. This says nothing about drug safety whatsoever. BTW, your statement that I'm insecure is an ad hominem (in case you needed an example.) > Cue Peter to change the subject to measles. I think you mean *back* to measles. But if you prefer, we can stick with discussing vaccines generally. I have no problem with that. > Cue Peter to make an ad hominem proving how insecure he is. Just > watch. Ad hominems are *your* specialty, not mine. PeterB >> >> Like calling people "pharmabloggers"????????????? >> > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > PeterB Amazing, he forget his famous *pathologic narcissism* > >> Like calling people "pharmabloggers"????????????? > >*IF* I used that term to avoid engaging in discussion that would be > >true. But that isn't the case. > What *is* the case is that you use the term in order to discredit the > person's opinion. No, my purpose in using the term is only to describe your behaviour, and that of others, here on mha. > Your continued use of this ad hominem ... If you check the Oxford dictionary, you'll see it doesn't meet the definition of that term. First, it isn't a personal characterization. Second, I don't use it to avoid debating your arguments. But if you want to call it an ad hominem, feel free -- it just reinforces that my observations have been right all along. > while > discussing topics reveals you to be an insecure person who is > incapable of using logic in making one's point... Interesting that cathy used this same angle in a post of hers the last few days. Is this an effort to psych me out using the word "insecure?" Not very interesting. > You must resort to > gratuitous character assassination in order to invalidate opinions > that differ from yours. I love other opinions, it makes me think. I wouldn't be here if everyone on mha thought exactly as I do. As for "gratuitous character assasinations," you're the expert in that area, not me. I guess that's why you don't permit your posts to be archived. I, on the other hand, would never prevent my posts from being archived. By the way, Rich, what exactly is it you're trying to protect with use of that feature? > For example you made a general statement that vaccinations are only > 10-50% effective. No, what I said is that, in the absence of adequate study data, we *don't know* whether vaccines are more than 10-50% effective. If the study data were available, we could argue the quality of the data. We can't even do that with regard to measles vaccine. > When evidence was presented that chicken pox > vaccines have close to 100% efficacy you simply ignore it and call the > person a pharmablogger (sic). I did respond. First, I stated that varicella vaccine isn't relevant to the debate about effectiveness (or safety) of measles vaccine (which had been the sole topic of discussion), since the two aren't interchangeable. Second, I said the quality of study design is especially important with regard to infectious disease. If such studies are not designed to evaluate or adjust for environmental factors predisposing to either infection or resistance, they can't establish a positive link between non-infection and vaccine. In other words, if susceptability to infectious disease can be linked to factors other than non-vaccination, we cannot say that all non-incidence of viral illness is linked to vaccine. > You are incapable of acknowledging that > you may be incorrect when you gave such a low efficacy for vaccines > because you are insecure. In the absence of proper science, we don't know what the numbers are, and it's my guess that MMR may be 50% effective. This says nothing about drug safety whatsoever. BTW, your statement that I'm insecure is an ad hominem (in case you needed an example.) > Cue Peter to change the subject to measles. I think you mean *back* to measles. But if you prefer, we can stick with discussing vaccines generally. I have no problem with that. > Cue Peter to make an ad hominem proving how insecure he is. Just > watch. Ad hominems are *your* specialty, not mine. PeterB >> > Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >> > forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The difference is that you use pejoratives that are personal. Pharma > blogger, as I use the term, isn't personal. There ya go!!!!!! >> BTW, as for GWB...I think he is far from nuts and is a very complicated >> person. One of his fundamental characteristics is a deep sense of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > yep. Another one of her harassing and stalking posts. >>>>Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >>>>forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >>yep. > Another one of her harassing and stalking posts. Translation, I hit a nerve. >>>>>Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >>>>>forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>> >>>yep. >>Another one of her harassing and stalking posts. > > Translation, I hit a nerve. No translation needed. Another one of her harassing and stalking posts. >>>Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >>>forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > *IF* I used that term to avoid engaging in discussion that would be > true. But that isn't the case. Avoiding is not the issue. Ad hominems are used to discredit, and that is *precisely* why you do it. If you want to think of it as > name-calling, that's fine, but I disagree. "Pontificating > Bullshitter," on the other hand, that's name calling. When you posted your first warning, it was clear that you were pontificating and bullshitting. You earned it. >>Hmmm...you do make a point....one that I made to you..... > > The difference is that you use pejoratives that are personal. Pharma > blogger, as I use the term, isn't personal. So you think. >>BTW, as for GWB...I think he is far from nuts and is a very complicated >>person. One of his fundamental characteristics is a deep sense of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Miers was simply a dumb idea. Bush must be falling apart. You assume that he was "together". I see no evidence of it. >>This IS going to be interesting. > > yep. >>>>Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >>>>forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Avoiding is not the issue. Ad hominems are used to discredit, and that is > *precisely* why you do it. Poor Mark. Far be it from him to try and discredit. > If you want to think of it as >> name-calling, that's fine, but I disagree. "Pontificating >> Bullshitter," on the other hand, that's name calling. > > When you posted your first warning, it was clear that you were > pontificating and bullshitting. You earned it. YOU and YOU alone and responsible for your name calling. >>>Hmmm...you do make a point....one that I made to you..... >> >> The difference is that you use pejoratives that are personal. Pharma >> blogger, as I use the term, isn't personal. > > So you think. So it a FACT! >>>BTW, as for GWB...I think he is far from nuts and is a very complicated >>>person. One of his fundamental characteristics is a deep sense of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You assume that he was "together". I see no evidence of it. Neither can you see that *Pontificating Bullshitter* is personal, nor the FACT that you constantly try to discredit others, then accuse others of it. >>>This IS going to be interesting. >> >> yep. >> > Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >> > forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >*IF* I used that term to avoid engaging in discussion that would be >true. But that isn't the case. Sure it is. You used exactly that reason a few days ago when that fellow showed up with his survey. You told him that the newsgroup was rife with paid agents and so he couldn't trust most of the responses he was going to get. (Of course, he could trust YOU, couldn't he, PeterB? You'd never provide dubious information.) -- 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 >>> > Some people think George Bush is nuts, others don't. In a public >>> > forum, saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > he was going to get. (Of course, he could trust YOU, couldn't he, > PeterB? You'd never provide dubious information.) Of course we could trust, Mark Probert, couldn't we, David. Oh yeah. Poor David. > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always ARROGANT & WRONG > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >Of course we could trust, Mark Probert, couldn't we, David. > >Oh yeah. > >Poor David. Is the subject of this thread Mark Probert? Is the subject of this thread David?? Poor Jan. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any >argument he makes, You mean like calling someone a "Pharmablogger" (sic) whenever someone criticizes alternative medicine?? It is noted that Peter has been unable to document a single case of a poster here being paid to give his opinion. Instead Peter just makes unsubstantiated claims of pharmablogging (sic) in an effort to discredit the poster's opinion. Calling someone a Pharmablogger (sic) is tantamount to making an ad hominem argument which hypocritically Peter accuses others of making. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any > >argument he makes, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Calling someone a Pharmablogger (sic) is tantamount to making an ad > hominem argument which hypocritically Peter accuses others of making. Rich, I'm disappointed in you. I referred you to the Oxford dictionary for help with this. "Pharma blogger" can't be an ad hominem, because it isn't a personal pejorative. It isn't even a professional pejorative, however I do criticize you for doing what you do and concealing it. I wouldn't have a problem with industry being here if it was out in the open. If the term "Pharma Blogger" is taken as personal criticism, what does that tell you about your conscience? PeterB >> >saying that George Bush is nuts can be used to discredit any >> >argument he makes, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PeterB He deaden it long ago. > "Pharma blogger" can't be an ad hominem, because >it isn't a personal pejorative. Accusing nearly every poster who criticizes alternative medicine of being a paid agent for pharmaceutical companies is not a personal pejorative?? We can agree to disagree. If readers believed your accusations they would be more likely to dismiss the opinions as being paid for and therefore question their validity. This of course is your objective despite your protestations. I understand your wanting to use this tactic since your arguments rarely pass the giggle test. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >> But if one of the other's personal attributes is that the other is >> nuts, that's relevant to the discussion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >argument he makes, without meaningful discussion of his views -- that's >an ad hominem. But you'd have to make a case for Bush's insanity. Now, I personally don't think Bush is crazy in any meaningful sense of the term. I think he's a blinkered liar with a bunch of mutton-headed "principles" and should be driven from office in disgrace, but I don't think he's nuts. >The point is, readers should arrive at such conclusions >based on the content of an individual's writing, a fair discussion of >differing views, and not pejoratives. The interesting thing about an >ad hominem is that it isn't the name calling, it's the use of labeling >to evade a meaningful debate. Right. And you use your silly, made-up term "pharma blogger" as an excuse for dismissing anyone who manages to disagree with your or annoy you sufficiently. >> Denounced, perhaps, but where's the evidence. I've seen plenty of >> posters who initially seemed quite reasonable -- it was only later on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Having a "jaundiced eye" toward another person based on one thing you >don't like about them is itself a prejudice. I can't agree with that. If I find a person's reasoning ability to be deficient in one area, it's naturally going to make me take a more careful look at their future claims. >> It doesn't. However, your total lack of evidence (other than the >> supposed "patterns" you observe with your all-seeing eye, kind of like >> Sauron, I suppose) does put your own conclusions into question. > >I like questions, it's how we get answers. As for evidence, human >behaviour is the best evidence for motive there is. And my observations of your "human behavior" suggest that you are an ineffectual person, probably of no visibility in his personal life, who therefore constructs an elaborate conspiracy surrounding himself. That is to say, you've decided that you're of such great significance that the Evil Pharmaceutical Companies have a flock of paid agents here on m.h.a, just to argue with you, try to shoot you down, and always to get in the last word. I can actually point to your various postings as evidence. All the "evidence" you have is that there are a lot of posters here who don't seem to like you much. -- 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 Methinks David just describe members of the *gang* including himself, not to mention what a hypocrite he is. When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it generates comments about your own. David Wright >>> But if one of the other's personal attributes is that the other is >>> nuts, that's relevant to the discussion. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >Methinks David just describe members of the *gang* including himself, not to >mention what a hypocrite he is. Is the subject of this thread David?? It was Vitamins but I changed the title to address Jan's own hypocrisy. Jan is one to speak of hypocrisy. She accuses me of stalking while she repeatedly has posted what she believes to be my name, business address and phone number and then admits to not only calling the number but calling another number at the same business address to ask about the person she believed to be me. Jan regularly accuses others of lying when she knows that she lied about a doctor losing his license. Jan regularly accuses others of name calling when she regularly calls people names. Jan regularly accuses others of changing the subject to her when she does this repeatedly. Jan regularly accuses others of being despicable when she regularly espouses anti-semitic comments saying that lying comes second nature to Jews. Jan Drew aka Lady Lollipop is quick to see the hypocrisy of others and yet the mote in her eye prevents her from seeing her own hypocrisy. Jan says she is a Christian. Her bible says Judge Not Lest You Be Judged and Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone. There is no greater hypocrisy than that demonstrated nearly every day in this newsgroup. She has no respect for either the Bible or the Ten Commandments as she repeatedly lies and bears false witness against others. Despicable is too mild a word to describe Jan Drew. Cue Jan to start a new thread "The Hypocrisy of Rich" attacking me and proving she is a stalker. Cue PeterB to try to defend Jan. Just watch. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > >> But if one of the other's personal attributes is that the other is > >> nuts, that's relevant to the discussion. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > excuse for dismissing anyone who manages to disagree with your or > annoy you sufficiently. If I didn't engage in more serious debate on a wider variety of topics here than probably anyone, you might have a point. My use of the term is not dismissive, it's descriptive. > >> Denounced, perhaps, but where's the evidence. I've seen plenty of > >> posters who initially seemed quite reasonable -- it was only later on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deficient in one area, it's naturally going to make me take a more > careful look at their future claims. When your reasoning ability appears deficient to others, they are free to do the same. > >> It doesn't. However, your total lack of evidence (other than the > >> supposed "patterns" you observe with your all-seeing eye, kind of like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And my observations of your "human behavior" suggest that you are an > ineffectual person, probably of no visibility in his personal life... Personal attack noted. > who therefore constructs an elaborate conspiracy surrounding himself. Since there is no conspiracy, how could I have constructed one? What I point out is that industry engages in protectionism and market-busting tactics that are not in the consumer's best interest. This is not about conspiracy, it's about profits. > That is to say, you've decided that you're of such great significance > that the Evil Pharmaceutical Companies have a flock of paid agents > here on m.h.a, just to argue with you, try to shoot you down, and > always to get in the last word. It has nothing to do with me. Your ad hominems don't change that. > I can actually point to your various postings as evidence. All the > "evidence" you have is that there are a lot of posters here who don't > seem to like you much. The truth often makes more enemies than friends. PeterB > > >Christian, if you are still reading, please understand that David Wright is > > >a hyprocrite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Your hypocrisy is noted. It's not about me either, but I see you > didn't critique David when he personally attacked me. Perhaps that's because the boy Petey had jumped in with unsubstantiated lies about various unnamed persons before David was put to the bother of explaining that PeteyB isn't quite right in the head. Cathy > PeterB > >> Hey! > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > there are many such people) are being paid to do so. He is a sad > figure but not particularly important. David is given to exaggeration, since hashing over differing views doesn't make one a pharma blogger. For that matter, a person might innocently come here to trash natural medicine, and I suppose they do, but not in the numbers we see here on mha, and not with a near-fanatical defense of mainstream healthcare. PeterB >>>>Hey! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > PeterB Interesting though that you favor skewed results for a survey by leaving out certain people, who are a legitimate part of the general population. I'm beginning to understand where people like you get the idea that alt-med is gaining popularity and conventional medicine is in its death-throes and how you get the idea that alt-med works. Just leave the failures out of the statistics and voila! > >>>>Hey! > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > death-throes and how you get the idea that alt-med works. Just leave the > failures out of the statistics and voila! A dozen pharma bloggers on an "alternative health" newsgroup isn't representative of the "general population." A professional survey taker wouldn't use the Interent at all, for similar reasons. PeterB >> >> Hey! >> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >but not in the numbers we see here on mha, and not with a >near-fanatical defense of mainstream healthcare. I use some natural medicine myself. But that doesn't mean I have to kowtow to everything that gets the "alternative" or "natural" labels glued onto it. Of course, in your peculiar worldview, I'm a "pharma blogger." All I can say is, I *wish* someone would pay me for writing this stuff. -- 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 > >> >> Hey! > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > blogger." All I can say is, I *wish* someone would pay me for writing > this stuff. As you are well aware, my "warning" post makes no reference to discernment about marketing hype as a feature of pharma blogging. It has nothing to do with it. PeterB Check out this site for good info on vitamins and nutrition. http://www.thegreatestvitaminintheworld.com/index.php?afid=clancy36604 > Check out this site for good info on vitamins and nutrition. > > http://www.thegreatestvitaminintheworld.com/index.php?afid=clancy36604 A cheesy and poorly done promotion for a subpar supplement that's also over-priced is not an example of "good info on vitamins and nutrition." There are companies with good products whose websites *do* provide meaningful discussion about nutrients and health, this just isn't one of them. PeterB >>Check out this site for good info on vitamins and nutrition. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > meaningful discussion about nutrients and health, this just isn't one > of them. Agreed. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.