Mark Probert wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:03 pm, 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
>>>>>>>>
>>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.
>
> When you lie about what I say, expect it.
>
>>>>> 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?
>
> You would not understand the explanation.
This is an excuse not to answer.
>
> Note that I do not believe you are a gullible dupe.
>
Why? You can read between the lines?
>>> 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.
That's not consistent with your posts, you called me an anti-vac
for things like that.
> However, the persons motivation for making
> the claim is im****tant. Wakefield, for instance, was motivated by his
> patent and the lawyers fees.
And what is the motivation of ordinary people who have no patents,
no book deals and no lawyers' fees?
>
>> 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'?)
>
> Your last snide remark ends this discussion. You claim that I use
> certain tactics, and you use similar ones. Hypocrite.
>
> Bye.
Refusal to give an answer is noted. But it was expected because this is
the third time. And it is understandable: you do not have good choices.
Saying "the provisions should not have been deleted" would expose you
as a pharma ****ll. Saying "the NY lawmakers did the right thing" - well,
pharma ****lls are not allowed to say that. Saying "I cannot get the
text" - you tried that already, without success. All you can do is
to feign outrage. Oh, and snip the rest of my post because you have
nothing to respond. Your lack of logic is demonstrated too clearly.
|
