J
John 'The Man
Guest
Once upon a time, our fellow Alan Turley rambled on about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...
Here is one for Alan: Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
You can not have a conversation with a broken record. Just thought that you might want to know.
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:03:30 GMT, Richard Schulman wrote:
>
>>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an automated adolescent formula like the
>>above is clearly not interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for anything other than
>>a clown.
>
>If you intend to engage John in a considered debate of his assertions, make sure that you have
>extra time. You will waste a lot of it or as much as you choose to invest in him.
>
>If you have been only recently subjected to John's blather, you might yet have the impression that
>some expression of interest on your part will persuade him to engage in meaningful dialogue. You
>are mistaken.
>
>John repeatedly demonstrates himself to be either hopelessly addled or willfully ignorant of the
>topics of which he speaks, and his only real expressions of quasi-original thought are
>pre-adolescent verbal abuses aimed at anyone redirecting him. Sadly, even these are a poor excuse
>for reasoned responses.
>
>Engage him, and he will respond with asinine comments and affected laughter. Question him, and he
>may either ignore you, respond with non sequitors and baseless rebuttal, or accuse you of
>unreasonable bias. Tell him he is wrong, and he will throw intellectual feces at the forum until
>you reach the only effective solution. Ignore him.
>
>Unfortunately, even scrupulous disregard of John raises issues, since absence of rebuke frees him
>for what he really wants. He wants to be seen as a knowledgeable guide in your forum, which he will
>use to push his health care views as though educated on the topic. Ignoring him licenses him to
>talk, though he is a clear example of who should not.
>
>@~
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...
Here is one for Alan: Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
You can not have a conversation with a broken record. Just thought that you might want to know.
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:03:30 GMT, Richard Schulman wrote:
>
>>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an automated adolescent formula like the
>>above is clearly not interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for anything other than
>>a clown.
>
>If you intend to engage John in a considered debate of his assertions, make sure that you have
>extra time. You will waste a lot of it or as much as you choose to invest in him.
>
>If you have been only recently subjected to John's blather, you might yet have the impression that
>some expression of interest on your part will persuade him to engage in meaningful dialogue. You
>are mistaken.
>
>John repeatedly demonstrates himself to be either hopelessly addled or willfully ignorant of the
>topics of which he speaks, and his only real expressions of quasi-original thought are
>pre-adolescent verbal abuses aimed at anyone redirecting him. Sadly, even these are a poor excuse
>for reasoned responses.
>
>Engage him, and he will respond with asinine comments and affected laughter. Question him, and he
>may either ignore you, respond with non sequitors and baseless rebuttal, or accuse you of
>unreasonable bias. Tell him he is wrong, and he will throw intellectual feces at the forum until
>you reach the only effective solution. Ignore him.
>
>Unfortunately, even scrupulous disregard of John raises issues, since absence of rebuke frees him
>for what he really wants. He wants to be seen as a knowledgeable guide in your forum, which he will
>use to push his health care views as though educated on the topic. Ignoring him licenses him to
>talk, though he is a clear example of who should not.
>
>@~