On Jul 23, 9:45=A0pm, 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.c=
om
> >>>>
=A0>>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.
> >> =A0From 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.
> > =A0That 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
bette=
r
> >> 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.
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.
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.
That excludes you.
|
