On Jul 22, 11:39=A0pm, Mike <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
> >>
=A0>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedical-s=
ci_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.
>
> =A0From the article: "I am not anti-vaccine." (D. Kirby). Clear enough
bu=
t
> not for Humpty Dumpty Mark.
Just for the record, I have read every one of Kirby's diarrhea-tribes
and based on that, he is most assuredly anti-vac. He can deny it all
you want, but, there is no escaping my conclusion.
For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
> toe the line of drug industry on vaccines".
That is assinine.
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.
So, you are into ad hominem's. eh?
> > 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.
So you say, incorrectly I add.
|
