Quoted message said:Subject: Re: Peter Moran Shows His Anger (again)
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 12/25/2003 5:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>
<snip>
Quoted message said:Roger Schlafly
Is not the subject.
<snip>
Quoted message said:Debates with people whose arguments are based not on facts but on
blind faith
Umm, like 68% of conventional medicine??
<snip>
Quoted message said:anti-vaccination liars, creationists,
holocaust deniers, chemical voodoo believers, and anti-psychiatry
nuts.
They all must be loons, if they have a different *blind faith* belief system
than you.
ZZzz.
Quoted message said:All that can be hoped for here is to provide a rational point of
view and point out the inconsistencies and nonsenses in their
arguments.
Learned from *organized bainwashed medicine* blind faith believers, who *think*
they are the only logical *enlightened* people.
Smarter than God types.
Quoted message said:I rarely respond to any "original" drivel that Jan posts because we
have heard it all before and it has been debunked many times
*Anything* outside or organized medicine, is debunked here. As a matter of fact
the more debunking the more one can tell it is a subject that hurts the EGO.
<snip>
Quoted message said:I have a long-standing zero-tolerance policy on personal attack.
Oh? That wouldn't be a *selective* zero-tolerance would it?
Do show this zero-tolerance when Andrew starts attack John Bain with sodomizing
a nativity scene. Would you call that personal??
Do show us this zero-tolerance when Mark Probert does nothing but attack.
Do show us this zero-tolerance when Richard H, Jacobson does his attacking.
You are such a terrible liar, Peter, personal attacking is what your website is
all about.
Quoted message said:
My policy with regard to Jan for the next few weeks is to employ these
tactics only:1) When she calls ma a liar, I will ask for the exact words of the
lie.
Which I have always provided. I gave you word for word of your lies in your Ben
Kolb story, you been asked to show where any such things were said. You have
tried and failed to tell us it is opinion, but that doesn't fly as you made a
statement that certainly things were said, when in fact they weren't said at
all, and that is exactly why you were never able to prove your claims, as they
were and still are lies.
Start now.
Quoted message said:I have a long-standing zero-tolerance policy on personal attack.
Prove it. Show us this policy when the above mentioned posters or *any* poster
does the personal attacking.
Quoted message said:2) When she cites Scientologists as support for her anti-Ritalin
campaign,
It isn't possible for me to cite Scientologists as, first, I do not know nor
care what they believe. Second I have no knowledge of who is and who is not a
Scientologist.
So you already flunked that one.
Quoted message said:I will remind her of her remarks about how my atheism
informs my opinions about quackery and I will also quote Hubbard's
statement that Jesus was a pedophile.
Your atheism has to do with most all your remarks, while I know nothing of what
Sceintologists believe, I DO know how atheists believe.
They are terrilbly mis-guided.
There is a 1-800 atheist hot line. Call it,,,,,,,,,,,no one answers.
Quoted message said:3) When she repeats the lie about mercury in MMR, I will remind her
that she has been shown evidence by someone on her side that there
never was any mercury in MMR.
When you start on your rant about how safe MMR is, I will remind you, the issue
is not resolved and I will post the site that tells you why.
Quoted message said:) When she repeats the lie about the origin of the word "quack" being
a derogatory term for dentists who used amalgam in the early 19th
century, I will quote Thomas Browne's use of the expression in 1646.
Start now and do it til the cows come home, because in fact it is NOT a lie.
The first dentists who installed metal in the mouth were indeed called quacks.
Whether it was orginal or not, I really don't care.
Ask you buddy Jarvis.
He has stated:
*Dr. Jarvis next noted the Importance of, and the problems with, being clear
about just what quackery is. The word "quack," of course, dates from an age
when mercury, or quicksilver, was touted as a cure for syphilis and other
ailments by itinerant "quacksalvers." *
http://www.ntskeptics.org/1989/1989novemberdecember/novemberdecember1989.h
tm#jarvis
Quoted message said:
5) When she edits what I say in order to reply to her own fiction
I have never done that, that is another false accusation.
Quoted message said:I will simply reply with a 100%, non-edited quote of the message to
which she is responding.
It is called snipping not editing. No need to copy the whole entire post, if
one just wants to reply to one point.
There are several lies right here as I have pointed out. Get busy.
Then do show how easy it is to admit you made a mistake. You have made several
since stating that, you haven't admitted to them.
Think de-licensed.
Then begin a new practice of looking things up BEFORE you make such statements.
You gift of gab isn't lost on anyone here, somehow you think if you keep
talking and adding a new diversion, the subject will get lost.
Doesn't work with me.
Jan