Does this place serve any purpose?



>From: "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004"

> Oh, well, back to work....

LOL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

>You are probably right. I work for a living.

LOL.

When?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jan) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: Orac [email protected]
> >Date: 1/21/2004 1:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Here is a list of just some things I have found effective:
> >>
> >> Chiropractic
> >
> >It's not.
>
> If one has never used it.
>
> Please visit your local chiropractor's office, ask those you see there.

You have been told many times why testimonials do not even qualify as
medical evidence and case reports are the weakest form of medical
evidence.

[snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jan) wrote:

> >From: Orac [email protected]
> >Date: 1/21/2004 1:45 PM Pacific
>
> >All alties
>
> Whine, whine, whine.

LOL! It would appear that Jan has noticed my comments to Softeng and is
now mimicking them. She never did have an original bone in her body, as
far as I can tell.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>> >From: [email protected] (soft-eng)
>> >Date: 1/21/2004 7:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:<[email protected]>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> No, YOU misunderstand the whole deal. If you make an assertion and
>can't
>> >> back it up with evidence (such as citations from peer-reviewed
>journals,
>> >> for example)
>>
>> If Orac wants that he should be on the correct newsgroup, and it *ain't*
>here.
>>
>>
>ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/misc/misc.health.alternative
>
>You selectively quoted the charter to distort its meaning

I am sorry you can't read.

>ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/misc/misc.health.alternative
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>> >From: [email protected] (soft-eng)
>> >Date: 1/21/2004 7:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:<[email protected]>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> No, YOU misunderstand the whole deal. If you make an assertion and can't
>
>> >> back it up with evidence (such as citations from peer-reviewed journals,
>
>> >> for example)
>>
>> If Orac wants that he should be on the correct newsgroup, and it *ain't*
>here.
>>
>>
>ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/misc/misc.health.alternative
>
>You forgot to mention this part of the charter:

No, I forgot nothing. I posted the URL for all to read.

For those who are slow, I posted there is no need for evidence backed up by
peer-reviewed journals, which as anyone knows comes from organized medicine.


>"misc.health.alternative is a newsgroup for general non-technical
>discussion (pro *and* con) of health care and therapies which are
>alternative, complementary, or not commonly accepted by Western
>scientific medicine."

Correct.

Non-technical.

>And discussing the evidence does not necessarily have to be "technical."

Make up your mind!!!

>If you make an assertion and can't
>> >> back it up with evidence (such as citations from peer-reviewed journals,
> for example)

THEN GO TO SCI MED OR SCI SKEPTIC!!

Can YOU HEAR ME?????

Jan
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 3:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>>
>> Here's an excellent example of the reason the *gang* is here.
>>
>> The purpose:
>>
>> >(Perhaps you have
>> >me confused with Jan Drew or Aribert Deckers, her evil
>> >twin from another dimension.)
>>
>> To belittle.
>>
>> >So up yours.
>> >
>> There ya go.
>>
>> An example of what kind of people are in the *gang*.
>>
>> >Roger Schlafly --
>
>Jan, I expect that Roger will take exception to your comments, so I cross
>posted this to m.k.h so he can see what you are saying.

More examples of the purpose of the *gang*.

Jan
 
>Subject: Jan: Retraction is appropriate
>From: "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 2:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>Mark Probert. Who spends his
>> times on the net releasing his many frustrations, while his wife *works*
>to
>> support the family.
>
>As I said in an email, I have never brought your husband into a discussion
>in any negative manner.

There is nothing negative about my hubby, he is one in a million.

>You may retract what you just said.
>
LOL. You are telling me what I may do???

I think not.

>As for your posting ot the URL, you take advantage of my stated Resolution
>wherein I refuse to deal with that person in any manner.
>
Umm, the URL came from YOUR behavior, so no need to place the blame on any one
except yourself.

Jan


http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jan) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >From: Orac [email protected]
> >Date: 1/21/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
> >> >From: [email protected] (soft-eng)
> >> >Date: 1/21/2004 7:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> No, YOU misunderstand the whole deal. If you make an assertion and can't
> >
> >> >> back it up with evidence (such as citations from peer-reviewed journals,
> >
> >> >> for example)
> >>
> >> If Orac wants that he should be on the correct newsgroup, and it *ain't*
> >here.
> >>
> >>
> >ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/misc/misc.health.alternative
> >
> >You forgot to mention this part of the charter:
>
> No, I forgot nothing. I posted the URL for all to read.
>
> For those who are slow, I posted there is no need for evidence backed up by
> peer-reviewed journals, which as anyone knows comes from organized medicine.
>
>
> >"misc.health.alternative is a newsgroup for general non-technical
> >discussion (pro *and* con) of health care and therapies which are
> >alternative, complementary, or not commonly accepted by Western
> >scientific medicine."
>
> Correct.
>
> Non-technical.

Note how she ignores the part about "pro and con" discussions being on
topic.


> >And discussing the evidence does not necessarily have to be "technical."
>
> Make up your mind!!!

How is it "technical" to point out a simple fact that there is no good
clinical or scientific evidence for certain alt med therapies and to
list the studies or briefly and simply describe them? You find just as
much in the lay press about a number of medical topics, even in
nontechnical magazines.

Also, you apparently missed Mark's post, where he showed that the
discussion of evidence for and against alt therapies is not off-topic.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>You've just lowered yourself even lower in my estimation than you had before.

Big hairy deal. It was lowered the minute alternative medicine was used in a
positive way.

>Before this, I thought you were just misguided

ZZzz.

> Honest, but
>misguided. Now I sincerely doubt your honesty

Orac is very selective with noticing dishonesty. His *gang* can lie and nobdy
gives a damn.

>Could you BE any more transparent?

Nope, the *gangs* purpose in being here is VERY transparent.

Jan
 
>From: "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004"

Sorry, we just can't believe any anecdotes.

Remember?

Jan

>However, I have been to dentists

<snip>
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
> Jan, I expect that Roger will take exception to your comments, so I cross
> posted this to m.k.h so he can see what you are saying.

Sorry, I couldn't follow whatever point was being made. I don't really
follow alternative medicine.
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>> >From: Orac [email protected]
>> >Date: 1/21/2004 1:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Here is a list of just some things I have found effective:
>> >>
>> >> Chiropractic
>> >
>> >It's not.
>>
>> If one has never used it.
>>
>> Please visit your local chiropractor's office, ask those you see there.
>
>You have been told many times

By the *gang*?

I din't have to be told, I have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.

As a matter of fact, I went to the chiropractor today.

> why testimonials do not even qualify as medical evidence and case reports are
the weakest form of medical
>evidence.

I am telling YOU, you need to live in the REAL world. NOTHING AND I MEAN
NOTHING BEATS WORD OF MOUTH!

Jan
 
>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>From: Orac [email protected]
>Date: 1/21/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>> >From: Orac [email protected]
>> >Date: 1/21/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>> >> >From: [email protected] (soft-eng)
>> >> >Date: 1/21/2004 7:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >> >
>> >> >Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, YOU misunderstand the whole deal. If you make an assertion and
>can't
>> >
>> >> >> back it up with evidence (such as citations from peer-reviewed
>journals,
>> >
>> >> >> for example)
>> >>
>> >> If Orac wants that he should be on the correct newsgroup, and it *ain't*
>> >here.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/misc/misc.health.alternative
>> >
>> >You forgot to mention this part of the charter:
>>
>> No, I forgot nothing. I posted the URL for all to read.
>>
>> For those who are slow, I posted there is no need for evidence backed up by
>> peer-reviewed journals, which as anyone knows comes from organized
>medicine.
>>
>>
>> >"misc.health.alternative is a newsgroup for general non-technical
>> >discussion (pro *and* con) of health care and therapies which are
>> >alternative, complementary, or not commonly accepted by Western
>> >scientific medicine."
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> Non-technical.
>
>Note how she ignores the part about "pro and con" discussions being on
>topic.

Note you are making up lies. I didnt ignore it, *I* posted it, and said
correct.

Just how did you arrive at my ignoring it??

> >And discussing the evidence does not necessarily have to be "technical."
>>
>> Make up your mind!!!

>How is it "technical" to point out a simple fact that there is no good
>clinical or scientific evidence for certain alt med therapies and to
>list the studies or briefly and simply describe them? You find just as
>much in the lay press about a number of medical topics, even in
>nontechnical magazines.

Read again.

>For those who are slow, I posted there is no need for evidence backed up by
>>*** peer-reviewed journals***, which as anyone knows comes from organized
>medicine.

Hellooooooooooooooooooo.

Peer-reviewed is *technical* and NOT reguired here.

>Also, you apparently missed Mark's post, where he showed that the
>discussion of evidence for and against alt therapies is not off-topic.

Gee, you come up with the strangest logic. Evidence for and against is fine,
however it does NOT need to be technical nor pre-reviewed.

So we are back where we started. If that's what you want, you are on the wrong
newsgroup.

Jan
 
>Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Ah, but I *do* belong here, as do you, and as does anyone who has an
>> interest in discussing "alternative" medicine. This is a newsgroup
>> dedicated to the discussion of "alternative medicine," BOTH pro and con.
>
>That's true, and it would be very normal for
>you to start a thread like "Alt medicine is wrong".
>But instead you obstruct all dialog with general illogic.
>
>The question that some of us find interesting is, if
>you don't believe in alternative medicine, why are you
>so interested in it?

Softhead, that really says it all, doesn't it? "..if you don't ****Believe****
in alternative medicine,..."

Medicine is far too important to be based upon individual belief systems. It
must be held to at least as high a standard as say, oh, consumer electronics.
Its gotta work in the real world and not because someone finds it so groovy to
believe in it.

Amongst the people you seek to censor, intimidate, and defame are many who USE
alternatives, some daily. They have found some gold nuggets amongst the rubish
heap that is called "health alternatives". With a keen intellect, skeptical
inquiry, and brilliant sacrasm, they are able to discern **** from shinola.
Contrast this with Charles (the ass-clown that calls itself "DrCEEPhD") who
brags about his ability to discern types of feces due to having spent his child
amongst said feces.

Yes, the pro-science types have a radiance about them whilst the true believers
have flies upon them.
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Damn. I was hoping to sell my business and retire to a life of riches and
> laziness. Oh, well, back to work....
>
> > You have to be
> > contacted. Maybe you are just not influential
> > enough.
>
> So true, so true. I am just a humble individual who has opinions that I
> express here.
>
> BTW, if anyone disagrees with your assessment, please set them straight....
>
> > But keep it up, maybe somebody will
> > notice. OTOH, maybe you just don't have what
> > it takes to be a good enough highly paid KOL.
>
> You are probably right. I work for a living.

Actually, on second thoughts you serve a very useful
purpose. By being generally inflammatory and illogical,
you spark interest in a large number of people about
alt-med. While some who are rigid and illogical will
agree greatly with you, most normal human beings are
not like that. (There is some loss with the rigid-and-illogical
types, but what can I say, it's evolution in action.)

So the end result of your work is more neurons allocated
worldwide towards alt-med. And in fact, the more
derogatory and inflammatory you are, the more
free good-press alt-med gets in effect!!

I think that's a good thing, since I think alt-med
serves a very useful niche.

Of course, if you were indeed hired by somebody
to defame alt-med, they would have to be not paying
any attention at all, not to realize this and
not to fire you.
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
....> Definition:
>
> Heckle: Asking to prove an assertion.
>
> Here is a real heckle:
>
> Typical Altie.
>
>
>

This is reminding me of the old George and Gracie routines... where George
Burns had to be the straight man for Gracie's interesting turns of logic.
Actually, I think her logic made more sence than softeng (who has still not
answered the question).
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:hboPb.111134$xy6.340651@attbi_s02...
> >
> > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Stop feeding the trolls here. Marked Pervert is another dentist with
bad
> > > teeth and mercury poisoning.
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > Dear lady,
> >
> > You have not been following Mr. Probert's posting closely enough. It is
> > quite clear he has never been a dentist... and is not a troll,
>
> Half-right. I am not a troll.
>
> However, I have been to dentists every six months for decades. There was a
> time when I worked for Uncle that there were no dentists available, so I
> waited and made an appointment as soon as I could.
...

oops, I meant you were NOT a dentist... I assume you go to the dentist.
 
>>Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>>From: Orac [email protected]
>>Date: 1/21/2004 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>>
>>> >Subject: Re: Does this place serve any purpose?
>>> >From: Orac [email protected]
>>> >Date: 1/21/2004 1:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >> Here is a list of just some things I have found effective:
>>> >>
>>> >> Chiropractic
>>> >
>>> >It's not.
>>>
>>> If one has never used it.
>>>
>>> Please visit your local chiropractor's office, ask those you see there.
>>
>>You have been told many times
>
>By the *gang*?
>
>I din't have to be told, I have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.
>
>As a matter of fact, I went to the chiropractor today.

I sincerely hope you weren't given a single cervical adjustment. I hope you
were given several....dozen....rapid, violent cervical adjustments.

>
>> why testimonials do not even qualify as medical evidence and case reports
>are
>the weakest form of medical
>>evidence.
>
>I am telling YOU, you need to live in the REAL world. NOTHING AND I MEAN
>NOTHING BEATS WORD OF MOUTH!

Not for deceit.

>Jan
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back