Mark Probert wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:39 pm, 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
>>>>
>>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.
>
> 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.
You are entitled to your conclusions. You probably have excellent
mind reading and palm reading skills (not so sure about plain reading).
>
> For him, anti-vac means "does not blindly
>> toe the line of drug industry on vaccines".
>
> That is assinine.
Do not like somebody laying bare the truth?
>
> 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?
>
Did I say anything incorrectly? Yes, you consider everyone who doubts
medical benefits of any single vaccine an anti-vaccinationist, this is
my conclusion from your posts. If you don't please state so.
Same for the other views that define an anti-vac for you.
>>> 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.
You apparently do not have plain reading skills.
Qualifying my statement as "incorrect" is making a statement opposite to
mine: that imputing to a person the views he does not hold is the
rightful result of skillful reading between the lines.
So, you just admitted that you indeed imputed to Kirby the views he does
not hold. Congratulations.
|
