Mark Probert wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:45 pm, Mike <M...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> My reading comprehension skills far outweigh yours.
>
>>> 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?
>
> No, dimwit, I do not like people intentionally mischaracterizing my
> opinions.
Insults and ad hominems are your usual fare, nothing new here.
>
>>> 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
>
> Yes, you consider everyone who doubts
>> medical benefits of any single vaccine an anti-vaccinationist,
>
> No, some of those people I consider to be gullible dupes.
>
Ok, and how do you distinguish a gullible dupe from 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.
And what about other views? If someone says that a specific mandatory
vaccine should be voluntary, or that MMR should better be given as 3
separate jabs with one month intervals - is that person an anti-vac or a
gullible dupe or neither?
And by the way, it would be interesting to find your opinion on the
deleted provisions of bill 10942: should they be restored? Should all
vaccines recommended by CDC be automatically mandated and should the
children be able to get Gardasil jabs without parents' knowledge or
consent? (I suspect you will not answer this one - or should I imitate
your style and say 'asswer'?)
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> You wish.
>
>> 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
>
> Wrong. I imputed to Kirby views that he clearly holds, for those
> people intelligent enough to understand what he writes.
>
You just confirmed your lack of reading skills and logic.
Re-iterating for curious (not for you, you are a hopeless case):
You stated that Kirby is against all vaccines and that anyone who can
read between the lines can see that.
I stated that imputing to a person the views he does not hold is NOT
reading between the lines.
You qualified the previous statement as "incorrect". We have double
negation here. So, in your opinion, imputing to a person the views he
does not hold is quite compatible with reading between the lines. And
the implication here is that yes, you can read between the lines
and you imputed to Kirby the views he does not hold, and this is why
you are so confident about my statement being "incorrect". End of story.
> That excludes you.
You are not in position to make any logical conclusions.
|
