Dictionary of Alternative Medicine

"N-H-P" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Announcing a new Dictionary of Alternative Medicine at:
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Sorry its mostly 'new age' stuff (to be brief about it) and
fails entirely to even mention many key aspects and adances in
natural health.

Phil Scott

Quoted message said:

I have just uploaded my new GNU Dictionary of Alternative

Medicine. 🙂

Quoted message said:

The formatting is a little bit rough, but the dictionary

basically

Quoted message said:

works just fine. The dictionary is actually 100% complete

right now

Quoted message said:

because most of it was actually written by other people. It

is also

Quoted message said:

right now one of the better dictionaries on the Internet on
Alternative Medicine.

As of now, my Dictionary of Alternative Medicine is quite

unique and

Quoted message said:

is actually one of a kind deal. These definitions have been

available

Quoted message said:

for years. What the dictionary does is provide an

informative index

Quoted message said:

to these articles.

My dictionary is part of the GNU Free Documentation Project

on

Quoted message said:

Alternative Medicine which is licensed under the GNU Free
Documentation License. I am the founder of the GNU Free

Documentation

Quoted message said:

Project on Alternative Medicine which located, organized,

and

Quoted message said:

classified hundreds of articles on Alternative Medicine. I

also wrote

Quoted message said:

a few of these articles myself.

My new GNU Dictionary of Alternative Medicine is 100% legal.

🙂

Quoted message said:

Enjoy ...
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Phil Scott said:

Sorry its mostly 'new age' stuff (to be brief about it) and
fails entirely to even mention many key aspects and adances in
natural health.

No Problem'O!

The dictionary is actually the end result of a collective effort of
many editors, including far too many science bigots. So, I would call
it far too scientific for my tastes. It gets even more science
oriented once you actually start clicking on the hyperlinks.

Virturally every article has been attacked and edited by science
bigots. And, I mean with absolutely no exceptions. 🙁

Any specific requested changes should be emailed directly to my web
site via the Contact Info hyperlink located on the web page footing.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

"N-H-P" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Scott said:

Sorry its mostly 'new age' stuff (to be brief about it)

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fails entirely to even mention many key aspects and

adances in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

natural health.

No Problem'O!

The dictionary is actually the end result of a collective

effort of

Quoted message said:

many editors, including far too many science bigots. So, I

would call

Quoted message said:

it far too scientific for my tastes. It gets even more

science

Quoted message said:

oriented once you actually start clicking on the hyperlinks.

its a mix of good science and utter [censored]..apparently
designed to serve the interests of a narrow spectum of
practitioners ....many dingbats...some probably not
dingbats... and entirely not mentioning some of the most
viable approaches in alternative medicine... thats not sign of
progress.

Quoted message said:

Virturally every article has been attacked and edited by

science

Quoted message said:

bigots. And, I mean with absolutely no exceptions. 🙁

Any specific requested changes should be emailed directly to

my web

Quoted message said:

site via the Contact Info hyperlink located on the web page

footing.

I wouldnt bother myself. I suggest you do some
research..not just read in the captive new age massage and men
from the plaedes magical ... err materials.

When you try to mix that with science as an attempt to
legitimize the smoke is where you are having your trouble...
and I am a life long and very effective alternative medicine
person, not for others, but just for myself... yet I see you
dictionary as largely bogus for its ommisions and spin onto
peripheral practices then trying to use good science justify
the practice...which are seldom all bad...its that distortions
are bogus, so is ommitting some of the most common effective
approaches (main stream medicine in German for instance in
some cases) you dont even mention them.

not impressive.

Phil Scott

Quoted message said:

--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Quoted message said:

Announcing a new Dictionary of Alternative Medicine at:
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

I have just uploaded my new GNU Dictionary of Alternative Medicine. 🙂

Over all, I am very pleased with my new dictionary. 🙂

I have just finished cleaning it up, a little. I also discovered that
I need to merge one more index into it, as some of the links are
missing. 🙁

And, I have made a major update to the index page.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

"Homeopathy" is an entry for consideration in the "dictionary" and one
whose author has promoted previously, what we really need is a good
alchemical dictionary to bring that science up to date. In any case the
good folk at quack watch are so fond of homeopathy as to devote an entire
web site to it:

http://www.homeowatch.org/

To add a bit of spice to the mix, James Randi a well known debuncker of
spurious claims has a 1 million dollar prize in the bank for anyone who
can demonstrate the claims of homeopathy:

http://www.randi.org/jr/102204the.html#6

To have such a dictionary is fine, but in my quest that consumers of
potential health related products/services have the full range of
information, I think a good addition to each topic page would be any links
to alternative views on just how effective the product/service is and any
other alternative concensus as to it's being based in science. The good
folk at quack watch have much of at hand for easy linking, but there are
easily other web based information to which to link for each and every
entry. I find the disclaimer intresting, no claims to meeting the Huncode
standards on these pages.

Phil Scott said:

Quoted message said:

The dictionary is actually the end result of a collective

effort of

Quoted message said:

many editors, including far too many science bigots. So, I

would call

Quoted message said:

it far too scientific for my tastes. It gets even more

science

Quoted message said:

oriented once you actually start clicking on the hyperlinks.

its a mix of good science and utter [censored]..apparently
designed to serve the interests of a narrow spectum of
practitioners ....many dingbats...some probably not
dingbats... and entirely not mentioning some of the most
viable approaches in alternative medicine... thats not sign of
progress.

I lot of them live in Great Britain. The Brits have a funny
way of looking at life.

Quoted message said:

I wouldnt bother myself. I suggest you do some
research..not just read in the captive new age massage and men
from the plaedes magical ... err materials.

Why am I not surprised? Quite frankly, I like to ignore trolls.

Quoted message said:

When you try to mix that with science as an attempt to
legitimize the smoke is where you are having your trouble...
and I am a life long and very effective alternative medicine
person, not for others, but just for myself... yet I see you
dictionary as largely bogus for its ommisions and spin onto
peripheral practices then trying to use good science justify
the practice...which are seldom all bad...its that distortions
are bogus, so is ommitting some of the most common effective
approaches (main stream medicine in German for instance in
some cases) you dont even mention them.

not impressive.

Yes, my dictionary is very impressive.

What is not impressive, is being negative without making any concrete
suggestions as to what specifically needs to be changed. And, I mean
specific.

Quite frankly, a large part of it is modeled from one research study
published in 2002 which documented how Americans actually use
alternative medicine.

I would be happy to consider any specific suggestions. But, I am
certainly am not going to loose any sleep over your negative comments
which so far seem to me to be total B/S. 🙂

The problem with Quacks is that they are totally unorganized. They do
not willing join group efforts. And, when the going gets rough going
they are to first ones to leave the building. 🙁

I will continue to improve the dictionary, as I see fit. The whole
point of the dictionary is to triple the traffic to my web site within
6 months. Pleasing you is not on my agenda. 🙂

I want a dictionary that would impress a science person. The last
thing that I want is something that looks like it was written by a
Quack. Any rational person should benefit from it. I know this
because, I am a rational person.

Cheers ...
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Ah, on further exploring of the new dictionary I see my suggestion to use
quack watch as a reference is in place, your pardon please.
I did note one problem, the "Applied kinesiology" entry in
it's quackwatch link has a dead link, the current one:

+ Applied Kinesiology (updated 4/23/99)

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/ak.html

While exploring the dictionary I see that only some have links to quack
watch, "Ayurveda " for example. There is a search link on the page that
brings up several links that could be used as "external links". Here are
two links that should be at the start of the sections of the dictionary
that relate speciffically to the main premise of the dictionary:

A glossary of "alternative" medicine with links to major topics, including
traditional chinese medicine which has no quack watch link in it's
section.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altmini.html

Analysis of the Final WHCCAMP Report

http://www.quackwatch.org/07PoliticalActivities/WHC/03.html

It also needs a good proofing all over, lots of typos.

Quoted message said:

To have such a dictionary is fine, but in my quest that consumers of
potential health related products/services have the full range of
information, I think a good addition to each topic page would be any links
to alternative views on just how effective the product/service is and any
other alternative concensus as to it's being based in science. The good
folk at quack watch have much of at hand for easy linking, but there are
easily other web based information to which to link for each and every
entry. I find the disclaimer intresting, no claims to meeting the Huncode
standards on these pages.

I am not stupid, you know? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

The health claims that I make about natural health are made in the
main parts of the web site. The site has passed the Huncode review
twice. So, Huncode has accepted my specific health claims long ago. 🙂

Alternative medicine goes on forever, so I certainly am not going
claim that they all work. Obviously, I think that most of them don't
work. But, people want to know about alternative medicine so I have
provided an interface to a warehouse of information that goes on
forever. As much of the information has been written by science
bigots the information is pretty much sweaky clean anyway. 🙂

I have other projects besides the dictionary to work on, such as my
health blog.

But, as time permits I will convert some articles that I am interested
in and others just to attract more hits. Anything serious, however,
will be done under copyright elsewhere. The dictionary is not
copyrighted, so I wont do much with it other than correct some obvious
erros and biases.

Again, the primary purpose of the dictionary is to attract hits to my
website. Everybody else has a gimmick. Now, I have one of my own.
--
john gohde

On 24 Oct 2004 11:13:40 -0700, [email hidden]
(N-H-P) posted:

Quoted message said:

The dictionary is actually the end result of a collective effort of
many editors, including far too many science bigots. So, I would call
it far too scientific for my tastes. It gets even more science
oriented once you actually start clicking on the hyperlinks.

Does this person know what the opposite of "science" is?

In article <[email hidden]>,

N-H-P said:

Quoted message said:

To have such a dictionary is fine, but in my quest that consumers of
potential health related products/services have the full range of
information, I think a good addition to each topic page would be any links
to alternative views on just how effective the product/service is and any
other alternative concensus as to it's being based in science. The good
folk at quack watch have much of at hand for easy linking, but there are
easily other web based information to which to link for each and every
entry. I find the disclaimer intresting, no claims to meeting the Huncode
standards on these pages.

I am not stupid, you know? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I'm glad he can laugh at himself. It lets him join in with the rest
of the readership.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"The health claims that I make about natural health are made in the
main parts of the web site. The site has passed the Huncode review
twice. So, Huncode has accepted my specific health claims long ago. 🙂"

Your dictionary does not have the honcode info, only your web site that is
so "what else is new" that makes no claims that violates the principles.
The latter excludes homeopathy etc. as in the dictionary, so your apparent
tactic is to isolate your dictionary from your health web site so as to be
able to show honcode, a distinction without a difference where stealth is
used to conceal real health claims from the hum drum "so what else is new"
pabulum. But, links to each other are not easy to miss.

"Nobody is advocating homeopathy. So, what is your problem? Should
NCCAM be reported to quackwatch?"

You have it as an example on a site which advocates
products/services/proceedures that would not pass the honcode principles
guidelines. Propose to them your dictionary for inclusion. Guilt by
association in this instance is proper.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"The health claims that I make about natural health are made in the
main parts of the web site. The site has passed the Huncode review
twice. So, Huncode has accepted my specific health claims long ago. 🙂"

Your dictionary does not have the honcode info, only your web site that is
so "what else is new" that makes no claims that violates the principles.
The latter excludes homeopathy etc. as in the dictionary, so your apparent
tactic is to isolate your dictionary from your health web site so as to be
able to show honcode, a distinction without a difference where stealth is
used to conceal real health claims from the hum drum "so what else is new"
pabulum. But, links to each other are not easy to miss.

Perhaps, if you were to concentrate?

homeopathy exists

homeopathy has a definition

The definition I provide is a direct quote of how NCCAM defines
homeopathy.

The homeopathy article is technically in an encycledia that is not
part of the dictionary. 🙂

The homeopathy article has been beaten to death by science bigots and
is squeaky clean.

Nobody is advocating homeopathy. So, what is your problem? Should
NCCAM be reported to quackwatch?
--
john gohde

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Nobody is advocating homeopathy. So, what is your problem? Should
NCCAM be reported to quackwatch?"

You have it as an example on a site which advocates
products/services/proceedures that would not pass the honcode principles
guidelines. Propose to them your dictionary for inclusion. Guilt by
association in this instance is proper.

Well, if you are incapable of a mature adult conversation then babble
all you want to.

I am right and you are just an idiot.

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual.

PS: I guess that makes me smarter than you?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
john gohde

(N-H-P) said:

Quoted message said:

You have it as an example on a site which advocates
products/services/proceedures that would not pass the honcode principles
guidelines. Propose to them your dictionary for inclusion. Guilt by
association in this instance is proper.

Well, if you are incapable of a mature adult conversation then babble
all you want to.

....

Quoted message said:

PS: I guess that makes me smarter than you?

Actually, I know that I am. 🙂

The primary purpose of the dictionary is to attract hits to my web
site. The next reason for its existence is to totally [censored]-off and
infuriate all the science bigots at Wikipedia. The third reason is to
inform the public about the topic of alternative medicine.

For shot-gun hits, I will have about a dozen index pages that talk
about the subject of alternative medicine in general. The place was a
mess, but this actually works to my advantage. 🙂

To really infuriate all the science bigots at Wikipedia even more, I
will add the pages that I got into major battles over. Of course, I
will write them my way. 🙂

I will of course copy topics similar to natural health like natural
hygiene and naturopathy.

But because my single web page on exercise consistently gets the most
hits, I am going to convert every article on exercise and physical
fitness. Should be a score or two of these articles. This is called
the easy way of building a popular web site. 🙂

By the time I get through with the dictionary (wont be long), the time
I spent in developing Wikipedia would have proved to been well spent.
And, I definitely plan on letting the boys at Wikipedia know about it.
They actually think that they won. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! 🙂

Just thought that you might want to know.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

PS: I guess that makes me smarter than you?

Quoted message said:

Actually, I know that I am. 🙂

Yes, it is good to be smart. 🙂

Quoted message said:

For shot-gun hits, I will have about a dozen index pages that talk
about the subject of alternative medicine in general. The place was a
mess, but this actually works to my advantage. 🙂

Done!

http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/site-guide.html

Dictionary Indexes
------------------
Dictionary of Alternative Medicine: A -D
Dictionary of Alternative Medicine: E - I
Dictionary of Alternative Medicine: J - N
Dictionary of Alternative Medicine: O - T
Dictionary of Alternative Medicine: U - Z

Topic Indexes
-------------
Alternative medicine
Terms and concepts in alternative medicine
Philosophy of alternative medicine
Branches of alternative medicine
Famous people in alternative medicine
History of alternative medicine
Index of topics in alternative medicine
What is Complementary, Alternative, & Integrative Medicine?
Category on Alternative medicine
List of alternative medicine techniques

That adds up to 15 index pages with lots of keywords and text. 🙂

The dictionary has been scanned once already by google, but has not
made it yet into their search engine. It is only a matter of time. 🙂
--
John Gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/