Re: Can Unbiased, RESPECTFUL, Open Discussion of Health Topics Be Achieved On This Forum???

In message <43d826ea-97a9-4c2f-b6e0-705267b773ec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PeterB wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:00 am, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <c5535153-5144-483b-af54-29ab1e594...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PeterB wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:44 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think you'll find precious few comments by me about
Tim Bolen, except (as now) in reply to someone citing
his comments about me.  By all means post counterexamples.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/search?hl=en&group=misc.health.alternative&q=Sessions+Bolen&qt_g=Search+this+group

The link above provides at least *some* of your posting history
relevant to your views of Hulda Clark and Tim Bolen. Unless you want
to deny that you have expressed negative comments about these
individuals, just admit that you *do* feel negatively toward them and
be done with it. Why all the fancy footwork to cloud the issue?

Who's clouding the issue? You post a link to material posted
*by* Bolen about me, and claim that it represents *my* "feelings"
towards Bolen.

Your "amazing shrinking claim" started out in
<4d6eb6ee-5293-4420-8e61-ee8aa01731cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
as:

# > What "support of those affiliations" are you ascribing to me?

# Your criticisms of Tim Bolen, for one.

Now, ten rounds later, you're down to imagining my "feelings"
towards him. No more "organized attacks," not even *one*
post by me criticizing him (yes, there are some -- the SOB
spams. You didn't even bother to find one of those.)

This is typical of your posting style -- make sweeping
statements with no support, when asked for support post
to a search result with hundreds of returns, say that it's
in there somewhere and it's up to someone else to find
whatever it is that supposedly supports you. It's lazy
and dishonest.

Bottom line: you're bullshitting to cover the fact that
you made a claim you can't back up and are too lazy to
even try to -- so instead you're just throwing more clouds
of bull***.

Tell us what it is
about the *content* of Bolen's posts that you so vehemently disagree with
that you have posted about him at least 100 times.

Please cite *one* instance where I replied to him AT ALL.

Where did I say you had replied *TO* Bolen?

Ah, it's spin time now. If you want to try to lawyer your
way around the fact that you're bullshitting, by all means
find *one* instance where I "vehemently disagree" (your
words) with "Bolen's posts" (your words) AT ALL.

I won't hold my breath, because even if you believed what you
posted (and I profoundly doubt that you do) you're too lazy
to actually do the work.

Yes, that's a reference to the quality of your "research."

No, that's a reference to the quality of your tactics (ie., poor)

Nice try at a PKB, but it ain't flying. You've been spraying
accusations around like a tomcat on diuretics, but you haven't
produced *ONE* single example to back them up. It's all handwaving
and demanding that someone else do the digging.

Again, if observing that he's not taking reasonable
opportunities to advocate for his client is "challeng(ing) (his)
First ammendment rights" then please clarify which
First Amendment right I am accused of "challenging."

Let's say you are not challenging those rights.  Tell us what it is
about the *content* of his posts that you so vehemently disagree with
that you have posted about him at least 100 times.

Since the subject comes up later, what bothers me is the
same thing that bothers the Court: the means employed and
the fact that the law provides no recourse against abuses
such as those the Court found Bolen and Rosenthal to have
committed.

But do agree with the litigations against Bolen, Clark, and Rosenthal
in the first place, and have you ever written letters of complaint
regarding them?

Trying to change the subject now, eh?

So instead of your original accusation that I was somehow
a threat to Tim Bolen's Constitutional rights (never
specified, now backpedalled) it's a totally separate
matter of my being insufficiently zealous in defending
Clark and Rosenthal?

No opinion on those cases, sorry. Take your Inquisition
elsewhere.

Point of order: I don't need to account to you or anyone
else for the things that take my fancy, including obscure
lawsuits such as those filed by e360 Insight.

Of course you have to acount for them, otherwise you would not to so
here.

That doesn't even parse -- but apparently you are claiming
that the only possible reason for posting to MHA is over
the Clark/Bolen/Rosenthal menage a trois.

Stuff it. Some of us are actually interested in the Charter
topic.

Just admit to your affiliation with a PR project amenable to
Stephen Barrett and "quackwatch" as your underlying reason for this
behaviour.

Sorry, I'm not into lying just to coddle your insecurities.

The only lawsuit involving Bolen that interests me at all is
the recent defamation case where the Appellate Court found that
Congress had inadvertently created a loophole for defamation
without recourse.  I don't feel terribly radical when I agree
with a high court that this is not good law.

That may be, but have you ever written letters of complaint regarding
Bolen or Clark and how does that tie in with your "work" on mha?

Amazing shrinking claims again.

*YOU* were the one posting about my "organized attacks" here,
now you're going all Joseph on us and asking me to provide
private correspondence to prove your point, because you can't?
Of course, if I were to say that there is no such, you just
say I'm lying.

Actually, as previously noted, I've reported Bolen for spamming.
Along with thousands of others. Make of that what you will.

To the extent that someone advertises this particular decision
as a "victory" or "vindication," my opinion is that of the
Court: this is shameful.

Do you believe that Hulda Clark or Tim Bolen should be in prison?

Do you know of a reason why they should be? I've never bothered
to check on the matter, but you seem to think that they've been
breaking laws. Do explain.

If comments about Tim Bolen are out of line here, then
all of the rest of the traffic on these threads is all
the more so.

You and your cohorts have made sure of that.

Please clarify.

See my "Warning" post from last year.

Thank you, but I'm sure that after all these words
it won't kill you to typejusta few more applying the
ideas expressed generally there to the instant thread.

The point was made earlier.  You and your cohorts engage in the
presumption of error toward those of us who advocate natural medicine
approaches. You do this prejudiciously and without evidence in support
of your own positions favoring conventional methods.  I might add that
your repeated attacks on mha posters and defence of "quackwatch"
operative Stephen Barrett (whose losing litigations targeting holistic
practitioneers you support) have gone on daily for many years.

This is a marvelous example of special pleading, thank you.

Item: You presume guilt by association "you and your cohorts"

I do not presume guilt, I observe how you behave and interact with
other posters.

You mean by posting here? What a shock. It's freaking
NEWSGROUP, Bucky -- "interaction" is what it's all about.
Hate to break the news to you, but what happens on newsgroups
is that people discuss things of interest to them -- inevitably,
some opinions agree and some disagree.

The fact that there's nobody here who agrees with you doesn't
prove that you're special and holy. Sorry to break the news.

Item: You presume (as though it required no evidence) to indict
      my thoughts ("presumption of error.")

I cannot "indict your thoughts," I can only observe how you express
them.

A "presumption" is a thought. If you have any specifics
of those "expressions," post them. Otherwise, you're pulling
the same lazy bull*** that you did above with the whole Bolen
crap. Special pleading: you're claiming the result and
denying the responsibility for backing up your own claims.

Item: You accuse me (as though no evidence were required) of never
      having evidence of my own position.

That would assume you even state a position. You rely on the mere
suggestion of an argument using irrelevancies as "evidence" for a
point you never make.

In other words, you're denying your own claim, from above:

#> > You do this prejudiciously and without evidence in support
#> > of your own positions favoring conventional methods.

Item: You accuse me (as though no evidence were required) of
      "repeated attacks on mha posters."

Readers are free to peruse your considerable posting history and
decide that for themselves.

More of the "I have here a list" bull***. In ten rounds on
the Bolen red herring, you couldn't come up with ONE instance.
Here you are doing it again -- you're claiming "repeated attacks"
and then running away from coming up with even ONE example.

Not only bull***, but cowardly and lazy bull***.

Item: you present (without evidence) the conclusion that I defend
      Barrett et al.

Again, your posting history supports this.

"My posting history" -- but you can't find a single example.
That's because you're LYING, Boy. You've been posting for
more than a dozen rounds as though you actually knew what
you were posting about, and all you've been doing is winding
yourself deeper.

Which is precisely what you do on other threads. You spew
bull*** and then duck out when called on it.

If I'm wrong, do you
repudiate his litigations?

I don't give a drying duck one way or another. He's your
obsession, not mine.

However, if you had the sense God gave a drunken goose or
the honesty of a politician, you would have at least checked
the "posting history" that you've been pretending to know
before spraying this kind of accusation.

Item: You presume (as though it required no evidence) that if I
      *had* defended him, that alone would condemn me.

No, it's the fact you won't explicity state your view of him that
tells us you have something to hide.

Ah, yes. Another classic. As it happens, I have earlier
in this post -- but you're not the Junior Senator from
Wisconsin and you're not in a position to demand an opinion
from anyone.

This whole "you have to prove that you're not disloyal"
crap is slimy at best -- but mostly it just proves that
(like old Joe) you don't believe that your own position
can stand up in a free exchange of ideas.

No.  Nor, please note, did I state that you did.

"Sort of like insisting that anyone who disagrees with you
is paid to do so, eh?"  -- DC Sessions

Ah, yes!  Message <4kluc5-c7b....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Do tell -- was that you I was replying to?  You seem to
think so; otherwise your "refutation" quoted above would
be totally irrelevant.  

Ahhh, yes!! ;;;)))

Busted.  If two posters make the same argument, and you refute the
one, you've refuted the other.  Don't tell me.  It all depends on
whether or not you can make the charge stick in a particular
instance.  Does that mean you are not a PR goon according to DrK, but
you are one according to me?  Gee, DCS, how good of you to admit that.

If you were speaking for kulacz, how does your history with
Vernon have any bearing?

In other words, you cannot truthfully answer the question I put to you
because doing so would reveal the fallacy of your argument.  Thank you
for admitting it.

That was a question?  All right: According to kulacz, I am a PR goon.
According to you, I am a PR goon.  

Correct.

Well, kulacz has as much as admitted to lying about that.
Now it's your turn.

Neither one of you, I'm sure, actually believes this...

Have you told your sponsors this and did they agree with you?

ObQuirk.

However, it suffices that *YOU* don't believe it.

-- in kulacz's case it's a proven matter.

Perhaps you should talk to Kulacz.

I did -- you'll note that he has been hiding lately.
That's what happens when bullshitters get called: at
first they bluster (you're in the bluster stage) and
throw smokescreen to try to hide their lies, they try
to change the subject, and so forth.

When that doesn't work, they slink off and try to pretend
it didn't happen, hoping that after a while they can come
back and start over.

I rather doubt that you're any more willing to stand up and be counted
than he was.

What is that supposed to mean?

Just like him, you won't put your money where your mouth is.
Because, of course, you know deep down that you're lying.

In the instant point, though, you were replying in place of kulacz
with a bit of your personal history -- which is totally irrelevant
to what he may (or may not) have meant.  Apparently that rather
subtle bit of reasoning escapes you.

If you don't know what Kulacz meant, how did you rebut him with a
comment about people who disagree with him? Don't tell me. You have
the magical ability to rebut an argument today, claim it wasn't one
tomorrow, then assert that you never rebutted either of us in the
first place?

Dude, you're thicker than I thought. Rephrasing someone
else's words (prefaced by "sort of like") for clarification
is a common (and, in polite circles, strongly recommended)
practice to avoid misunderstanding.

Even in less polite circles like MHA, it's pretty damn obvious
when it's prefaced by "sort of like" that it doesn't even
parse as my own position.

Exactly the argument I've made from the start.

# Sort of like insisting that anyone who disagrees with you
# is paid to do so, eh?

Your words in response to the **very same** argument.

So I was correctly restating your argument (which may or
may not have been his; neither of us in at the moment in
position to say.)

How was kulacz's position on your affiliation to industry any
different than mine?

It appears to have been the same, but only he knows for sure
and he's not speaking to the point -- and, unlike you, I try
to avoid the pretense of mind reading.  That was, please note,
why I *asked* what he meant (at which point you jumped in.)

Again, you took the liberty of rebutting his argument at the time but
now claim you didn't know what it was. Brilliant.

I rebutted the argument he appeared to have made while
recognizing the possibility that it may not have been
the one he intended.

Yeah, I know -- honesty. You just don't get it.

If it's the same argument, it doesn't
matter who you were addressing unless you now admit that your argument
was baseless, which it is.  Why not just admit it?

Reading comprehension time: the reply to kulacz was a rephrase
of his argument.  It was not, as anyone who can read for content
would see, any position of mine in the first place.

But you didn't know what his argument was, remember?

But it wasn't mine -- which is what you were claiming.
(The matter of certainty addressed above.)

Thus, your attempt to cast it as my accusing him (or you, or
anyone) of anything is, not to put to fine a point on it,
irrational.  

Irrational describes your efforts to rebut an argument you say wasn't
made to begin with then apply it to Kulacz selectively.

Your point was that I was making the accusation of
"anyone who disagrees with you is paid to do so" -- which
isn't even a plausible reading of the sentence, no matter
the context.

Now, you're trying to change the subject.

I believe that the research of Kruger and Dunning
(Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, December 1999)
may be relevant.

Does it say anything about the fallacy of an argument not made, then
rebutted, and later retracted?

Whooooooosh!

--
| *** happens. Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---+
.