Re: Mark Probert - Do you have PERSONAL reason why you don't want ??????this group discussing the AAPS v. Texas Medical Board case?

In article <95064a66-6911-4bd1-b92e-f32274a8ee07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Debbee <Butterflies2222@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: On Jan 23, 8:21?pm, schu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> Debbee:: If you are stating an opinion, there is a possibility that the
:> : information you believe is not true or is true. ? For example,
:> : If I said, "The sky is green." ?

: (you forgot to quote the rest of it......so I brought it back down)
: Debbee; You might say it is not green this is false.

: That would be your opinion but I should be able to have mine without
: you stating that your intelligence is greater, or referring to people as
: "morons," or accuse people of making "stupid posts."

If your opinion is that the sky is green, then you are holding an opinion
that is clearly incorrect, since it is demonstrably untrue. If you claim
as a matter of fact that the sky is green, then you are either deluded or
lying. From your inability to tell the difference, I conclude that you
are not nearly as intelligent as you seem to think that you are.

:> The color of the sky is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact.

: No, it is not; it is all in perspective, in the matter in which you
: view the color of the sky.

Now *that* statement is insane, but, strangely enough, the one that I
expected you to make. The color "blue" can be defined very precisely
in terms of the wavelength(s) of light that are transmitted by or reflected
from an object. While it is true that as one adds more yellow, there will
come a point at which it is not possible to state definitively whether the
object is "blue" or "green," and while it is true that as one adds more
red, there will come a point at which it is not possible to state
definitively whether the object is "blue" or "purple," there are no
reasonable definitions of "blue" and "green" under which the color of the sky
is more accurately described by the word "blue" than it is by the word
"green."

If you want to adopt the Humpty Dumpty attitude that a speaker can choose
to assign *any* meaning to *any* word as he or she sees fit, that is your
prerogative; but such an attitude makes communication impossible as
Alice found to her dismay and as Tom Stoppard pointed out to the
amusement of his audience.

[Debbee's rather tiresome inability to understand the notion that a
general rule might have rare exceptions, or that I specifically explained
the difference between a "lie" and a "mistake," deleted]

:> : First of all, "buddies," in this newsgroup is not something I have
:> : here. That in itselfis a mistruth. ?

: and again, the rest of this got cut off--

Because the rest of it was irrelevant to the comment that I made,
namely that you are incapable of recognizing sarcasm when you see it.
Since you did not understand the point of my calling Jan Drew your
"buddy," the rest of your argument, which was based on that misunderstanding,
is itself irrelevant.

: Here's exactly what I said in it's entirety......

If you want me to revise my opinion of your intelligence, you might take
the trouble to acquaint yourself with the rudiments of English grammar.

:: I see that your sarcasm detector needs some fine tuning.

: I see your ability to cut and paste correctly needs some help!

The techincal term for your statement is "non sequitur." You can look
it up if you want. But since we're on the subject, if you you had any
clue about how to use a newsreader or how to read usenet posts, you
would not need to insert the name of the poster before the comments
made by that poster.

:> : I would be pretty much common knowledge that there is a need to
:> : control the information that is presented here; always putting that
:> : shadow of doubt, that skepticism against alternative medicine. ?

:> Why should we *not* be skeptical of "alternative" medicine, since in
:> many cases, it has been shown not to work?

: Again, this is a matter of perspective. What works for some,
: doesn't work for everyone, so to state that some of it has been shown
: not to work, may or may not be true for everyone.

Even within actual medicine, some things work for some but not for all.
With many forms of alternative medicine (e.g. homeopathy), it is clear
that they do not work for anyone, ever.

:> : Debbee: If it works for someone, let it go as that....its pretty
:> : easy to realize it could work for someone.

:> Then provide us with an example of someone for whom Hulda Clark's
:> method worked.

: Us? I know very little about Hulda Clark, and know nothing about her
: research clinic. Perhaps you should direct that question to Tim Bolen,
: I understand that he worked for her.

Okay, then provide us a single example of an "alternative" therapy that
has been shown to work better than an equivalent standard therapy. The
only one that I can think of that even comes close is acupuncture in a
small number of specific cases. And even that one is not clear -- the
studies supporting it tend not to be well done, and the main proponent
of acupuncture on this newsgroup has told us that it is not possible
even in principle to perform a proper scientific study either of the
efficacy of acupuncture or to test for the existence of "Qi".

[Debbee's further demonstration of her inability to understand the difference
between quoting out of context and quoting to demonstrate that the
original statement made no sense deleted]

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."
-- Deborah Lipstadt
.