Re: Omega 6 PUFAs?

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.

The only way that would mean anything is if your willing to back it
up.
But your not. Anytime discussion get down to specifics you just resort
to personal accusations and bow out of the original conversation.

If my points and references are so superficial then it shouldn't be
hard to demonstrate. So I invite you once again to go back to original
thread and continue the discussion.The thread started here. ("coming
around to Susans point *****) . This could, in fact be useful for the
group.

But no, you just resort your elementary school name calling.

I must admit I was humored by your latest round accusations - First
time I've ever been called a Marxist and I suspect the same for
Outsider

Randy




I do admit, though I was atleast humored this time around. Don't think
I've ever been called a marxist before.








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
an answer.
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
- Jerk.

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.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: creation
    ... > I made no such assumption- I simply asked you to provide the evidence. ... Scientists have no obligation to treat seriously ... That's all I wanted you to admit. ... > Chris L Peterson ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: chinese food and illegal immigration
    ... If you gave your name as "Seth", you'd be giving your real name. ... Now I realize you're an idiot. ... Further proof of your inability to understand and analyze evidence. ... admit it. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: My View of God
    ... intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated ... since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to ... if only I could defend it and avoid falsification. ... justification for *God did it* to be found in methodological naturalism? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Was one ever put forward?
    ... Based on an acurate representation of the nature of science ... Based on evidence which can be corroborated by observation and/or ... therefore the designer must be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My View of God
    ... intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated ... ID used by SETI scientists, in particular, could also be applied to ... since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to ... Methodological naturalism is just a fancy way of saying that we humans ...
    (talk.origins)