tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (06/18/85)
I have been following net.med for almost a year now, Mr Banks and Mr Bullard have just brought it to the lowest level I have ever seen it at. I had hoped that we had a mutual respect for each other as intellegent people expressing opposing views for the benifit of all. However, it seems that I am thought of as a total fool by the above pair. Note their responce to statements by myself to which I offered references on request: From Gordon Banks: >This is all utter nonsense. I challenge you to provide even >one scientific study that substantiates any of the above points. >I'll look it up if it is in a regular refereed journal, but not if >it is in the Watchtower or some crank newsletter or book. >The anti-flouridation campaign has been a favorite of Birchers >and fundamentalist groups for many years, and is nonsense. From Carter Bullard: > This is pure bull****!!!!! > Absolutely wrong. WRONG, wrong, not right, false. > You just made this statement up to give yourself some sense of > credibility. It is completely wrong. There is no such study, > there is no fact in your statement whatsoever. Human studies > after WWII have shown this to be complete bull****. This is > what we are all screaming about. You make this stuff up, and > then try to use it as evidence to justify your warped view of > biology and medicine. It seems that Gordon will simply trash out any data that disagrees with his beliefs and Carter has a serious problem. How can you know that I made this up? It is information from the book "Life is a Flow" by Paul Brenn. I will lower myself this time only long enough to call you a liar. I hope future discussions will remain on a higher level as befits intellegent people. I apologize to others on the net for posting this non-med article. And I ask that in the future name-calling be sent to net.flame (I don't read that group). {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (06/21/85)
In article <1002@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > >I have been following net.med for almost a year now, Mr Banks and Mr Bullard >have just brought it to the lowest level I have ever seen it at. I had hoped >that we had a mutual respect for each other as intellegent people expressing >opposing views for the benifit of all. However, it seems that I am thought of >as a total fool by the above pair. Note their responce to statements by myself >to which I offered references on request: > > >>From Gordon Banks: >>This is all utter nonsense. I challenge you to provide even >>one scientific study that substantiates any of the above points. >>I'll look it up if it is in a regular refereed journal, but not if >>it is in the Watchtower or some crank newsletter or book. > >It seems that Gordon will simply trash out any data that disagrees with his >beliefs and Carter has a serious problem. How can you know that I made this >up? It is information from the book "Life is a Flow" by Paul Brenn. >I will lower myself this time only long enough to call you a liar. > >I hope future discussions will remain on a higher level as befits intellegent >people. I apologize to others on the net for posting this non-med article. >And I ask that in the future name-calling be sent to net.flame (I don't read >that group). I don't know how intelligent you are, but I think your reply, in addition to your opinions calls into question your reality testing facility. I never accused you of "making it up", in fact I was quite certain you hadn't, since the same garbage is found in other spewings of similar ilk. I challenged you to provide some data, instead of providing it, you say it is clear I will trash it and gave the name of some book that is not in the libraries around here. Am I supposed to order the book? Why should I believe what this man says any more than L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, or any other number of religio-medical theorists? Any fool can write a book, how about some reference from scientific literature? Or alternatively, a summary about the materials and methods (if any) of the cited research. If you can't provide this, what is the basis for the claims? I can write and publish a book that says anything I want, but if I expect anyone but fools to believe it I have to give some data that justifies what I say. Where is the data? Our site can't post to net.flame or net.religion, but I agree that this is where this discussion belongs, unless you are willing to cite some scientific evidence for your peculiar claims. It is only on this basis that I can render objective criticisms, otherwise we are stuck with name calling, so either respond to my challenge, or let's just end it.