Mark Probert wrote:
> On Jul 21, 10:00 pm, Mike <M...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 8:00 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> News from Ilena Rosenthal: Health Loverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-sci_b...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment
>>> Factual medical do***ention left intact. Idle conjecture, ad homiem,
>>> and political rants removed.
>>> oops, nothing left.
>> Incorrect. There were no ad hominem attacks in the text. And no
>> political rants either unless quoting or mentioning a politician
>> qualifies as a political rant.
>
> What the politicians were saying are politcal rants. Period. They are
> not scientific evidence.
This is a new definition of political rant.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, rather scornfully, "it means
just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
>
> And, make no mistake, Kirby is pure anti-vac.
From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby). Clear enough but
not for Humpty Dumpty Mark. For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
toe the line of drug industry on vaccines". That includes everybody who
doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain vaccines
should not be mandatory, or has reservations about recommended
vaccination schedule, or thinks that combination vaccines are no better
than single vaccines etc.
> If you do not see this, sharpen your "read between the lines skills."
Imputing to a person the views the person does not hold is more
like palm reading, not reading between the lines.
|
