On Jul 24, 11:03=A0pm, Mike <M...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
> >>>>>>
=A0>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/amanda-peet-vsmedic=
al-sci_b...
> >>>>>>>> Amanda Peet vs. the Medical Establishment
> >>>>>>> Factual medical do***ention left intact. Idle conjecture, ad
homi=
em,
> >>>>>>> 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
a=
re
> >>>>> not scientific evidence.
> >>>> This is a new definition of political rant.
> >>>> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, rather scornfully, "it
mean=
s
> >>>> 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
enou=
gh 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.
When you lie about what I say, expect it.
> >>> =A0That includes everybody who
> >>>> doubts benefits of any single vaccine, or thinks that certain
vaccin=
es
> >>>> should not be mandatory, or has reservations about recommended
> >>>> vaccination schedule, or thinks that combination vaccines are no
bet=
ter
> >>>> 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-vaccinationis=
t?
You would not understand the explanation.
Note that I do not believe you are a gullible dupe.
> > 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?
For the most part, neither. However, the persons motivation for making
the claim is im****tant. Wakefield, for instance, was motivated by his
patent and the lawyers fees.
> And by the way, it would be interesting to find your opinion on the
> deleted =A0provisions 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'?)
Your last snide remark ends this discussion. You claim that I use
certain tactics, and you use similar ones. Hypocrite.
Bye.
|
