Re: Omega 6 PUFAs?
- From: Bob <anothascreename@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:49:41 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 10, 2:22 pm, "ra...@xxxxxxx" <ra...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't think so. He replies to posts without reading them
with any comprehension.
If your referring to our previous exchange I not only read both your
responses but replied in full and provided the references you
requested. I'm still waiting for your reply in that other thread!
As demonstrated in my response, it was you that misrepresented/lied
about your literal statements in an attempt to make your rant appear
somewhat reasonable. This was really dumb as anyone can see how you
changed your statements from you first post to your next response.
He accuses others of being
unscientific, but then offers just his opinions.
I provide as many or more references as anyone in this group. When I
don't provide a reference I will on request. Many here may not like
me, may think I'm an obnoxious know it all or much worse, but I've
never been accused (accept by you) of not backing up my claims/
Bull. You don't have opinions.
All you do is copy and paste simple search results. Then go with the
ones that fit your agenda.
As far as my relationship with Chris M.it's been heated at times with
names called but it's overall respectful. I consider Chris a friend
and a value to this group. We often take differing positions and I
find it invaluable to have someone that's acquainted with the nature
of evidence and the scientific method to have a conversation.
Chris is is not just acquainted with the nature of evidence and the
scientific method: he is *qualified* "to have a conversation".
What are *your* qualifications?
I realize I *did* ask you that question before, and you still owe us
It's an important question: there are, after all, the learned, and
then there are those who think they are learned, when all they really
are is just a bunch of useless usenet junkies.
When things have gotten heated it's always about something very
specific and stays that way. You, on the other hand, start with global
negative generalities and avoid the specifics. There's a name for that
Now if you want to continue the discussion about the technicals of the
paper you referenced and your conclusion -I"ll be happy join in.
NOTE to Outsider:
Your original response to this guy hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
Losers of the world, unite!
Marx would be proud of you two.
- Prev by Date: Hope for Outsider
- Next by Date: Re: bg 94 2 hrs after spaghetti
- Previous by thread: Re: Omega 6 PUFAs?
- Next by thread: Re: Omega 6 PUFAs?