"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html Anth > > So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself? You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for honesty of truth. These types of lists are generally made up by those who get pissed off because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have the capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead abandon reality? -- "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug
I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the MHA charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I had included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and debunking is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant to MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html Anth > > > > > > So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself? > > You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for honesty of truth. These > types of lists are generally made up by those who get pissed off because their favorite pet > thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have the > capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet > theories shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when this happens, is > it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead abandon reality? > > > -- > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" > > to email me Please remove "all your clothes" > > Doug
Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to clean this group up. ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest the rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not just JCD. (Jan compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over these weak minded perverts they cannot stop of their own free will so we require their ISP's help to shut them off. "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all about > bickering and name calling which is against the MHA > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I had > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line > after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and debunking > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are > relevant to > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth > > "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html Anth > > > > > > > > > > So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself? > > > > You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for honesty of truth. These > > types of lists are generally made up by those who get pissed off because their favorite pet > > thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have > the > > capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet > > theories shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when > > this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead abandon reality? > > > > > > -- > > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" > > > > to email me Please remove "all your clothes" > > > > Doug > > > > >
It's on google somewhere, you would have to fins the original source. Anth "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to clean this group up. > ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest the > rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not just JCD. (Jan > compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over these weak minded perverts they cannot > stop of their own free will so we require their ISP's help to shut them off. > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming > > the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the > MHA > > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I > had > > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line > > after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and > debunking > > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are > > relevant > to > > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth > > > > "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > news:[email protected]... > > > > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html Anth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself? > > > > > > You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for > > > honesty of truth. These types of lists are generally made up by those who get pissed off > > > because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have > > the > > > capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories > > > shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, > when > > > this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead > > > abandon reality? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" > > > > > > to email me Please remove "all your clothes" > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > >
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all about > bickering and name calling which is against the MHA > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I had > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line > after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and debunking > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are > relevant to > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth > No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for some interesting discussion. As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to be able to tell the difference between debunking, legitimate critisism, and trashing. Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has. In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up. And rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue as if nothing has happened. Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair number of quacks, and these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public duty. want to say more, but baby is just waking up, and I won't have much time -- "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug
In article <[email protected]>, "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all > > about bickering and name calling which is against the > MHA > > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I > had > > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line > > after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and > debunking > > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are > > relevant > to > > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth > > > > No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for > some interesting discussion. > > As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to > be able to tell the difference between debunking, legitimate critisism, and trashing. Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with ideologically-motivated or close- minded trashing. He makes no distinction between the two. > Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has not gone through the > type of testing that most normal medicine has. Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated exactly the same as conventional medicine with regards to the sort of evidence that is needed to show efficacy. >In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up. Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease. >And rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue as if >nothing has happened. Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional medicine. When something in conventional medicine is shown to be ineffective or less effective than something new, eventually the inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to change their practices. Occasionally it may even take a new generation of doctors coming up through their training and into practice to eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective treatments die out. Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown not to be effective a very long time ago, but still adherents cling to them. > Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair number of quacks, and > these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public duty. The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely denounce the quacks. Indeed, they often defend the quacks. [Snip] -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
Another Altie fascist grows... "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to clean this group up. > ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest the > rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not just JCD. (Jan > compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over these weak minded perverts they cannot > stop of their own free will so we require their ISP's help to shut them off. > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming > > the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the > MHA > > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I > had > > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line > > after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and > debunking > > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are > > relevant > to > > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth > > > > "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > news:[email protected]... > > > > http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html Anth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself? > > > > > > You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for > > > honesty of truth. These types of lists are generally made up by those who get pissed off > > > because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have > > the > > > capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories > > > shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, > when > > > this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead > > > abandon reality? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" > > > > > > to email me Please remove "all your clothes" > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > >
There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected] ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... > In article <[email protected]>, "Doug" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming > > > the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the > > MHA > > > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I > > had > > > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is > > > responsible for line after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT > > > in the subject and > > debunking > > > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant > > to > > > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth > > > > > > > No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for > > some interesting discussion. > > > > As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to > > be able to tell the difference between debunking, > > legitimate critisism, and trashing. > > Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with ideologically-motivated or close- > minded trashing. He makes no distinction between the two. > > > > Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has > > not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has. > > Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated exactly the same as > conventional medicine with regards to the sort of evidence that is needed to show efficacy. > > > >In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up. > > Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease. > > > >And rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue > > as if nothing has happened. > > Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional medicine. When something > in conventional medicine is shown to be ineffective or less effective than something new, > eventually the inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to change their > practices. Occasionally it may even take a new generation of doctors coming up through their > training and into practice to eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective > treatments die out. > > Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown not to be effective a very > long time ago, but still adherents cling to them. > > > > Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair number of quacks, and > > these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public > > duty. > > The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely denounce the quacks. Indeed, they > often defend the quacks. > > [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]>, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote: > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth No, actually, it's you who seem to be confused between the two, mistaking legitimate scientific skepticism for cynicism or close-mindedness. -- Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected] ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... > In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. > > Anth > > No, actually, it's you who seem to be confused between the two, mistaking legitimate scientific > skepticism for cynicism or close-mindedness. > > -- > Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." > | > |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me. See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time...... Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising something that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof. After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds to believe it works? -- "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me. See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time...... Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising something that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof. After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds to believe it works? -- "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. > > Anth > > Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me. > > See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time...... > > Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to > distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising something > that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as > sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof. There you go with semantics - what is a reasonable level of proof? That is when your cynicism comes in. Cynicism is being a Cynic. Scepticism is being a sceptic. > After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds > to believe it works? Everybodies 'reasonable grounds' are different when in fact you don't actually know. You can claim something doesn't work before it has been tested - typically Hulda's cancer 'cure.' I can claim something works when in fact I don't know. In which case what is being talked about is personal opinion. Just look at the way people pass the word 'cure' about on this forum. Personally I don't like the word 'cure' because it is applied to so many meanings. Anth > -- > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" > > to email me Please remove "all your clothes" > > Doug
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth > Of course not. If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all other alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well. So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the liver fluke causes cancer? -- "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. > > Anth > > Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me. > > See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time...... > > Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to > distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising something > that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as > sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof. There you go with semantics - what is a reasonable level of proof? That is when your cynicism comes in. Cynicism is being a Cynic. Scepticism is being a sceptic. > After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds > to believe it works? Everybodies 'reasonable grounds' are different when in fact you don't actually know. You can claim something doesn't work before it has been tested - typically Hulda's cancer 'cure.' I can claim something works when in fact I don't know. In which case what is being talked about is personal opinion. Just look at the way people pass the word 'cure' about on this forum. Personally I don't like the word 'cure' because it is applied to so many meanings. Anth > -- > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" > > to email me Please remove "all your clothes" > > Doug
(and it isn't even clear when applied) For instance you get 100 patients with heart disease, they take 'Giles Organic Offal Mix' All of them get well - their symptoms go away. That is pretty much grounds to say they have been cured. (Just by the definition of the word) 5 years later they all die from heart disease. Hulda does this in her book - no long term follow ups - the xrays show the tumours dissolving - the cancer is gone - that's about it. She uses the word 'cure' also. Anth "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth > Of course not. If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all other alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well. So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the liver fluke causes cancer? -- "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!" to email me Please remove "all your clothes" Doug
Also by definition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cynicism You can differentiate between the cynics in this newsgroup and the sceptics. (To be fair they are on both sides) Anth "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in
(and it isn't even clear when applied) For instance you get 100 patients with heart disease, they take 'Giles Organic Offal Mix' All of them get well - their symptoms go away. That is pretty much grounds to say they have been cured. (Just by the definition of the word) 5 years later they all die from heart disease. Hulda does this in her book - no long term follow ups - the xrays show the tumours dissolving - the cancer is gone - that's about it. She uses the word 'cure' also. Anth "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
