Heckler filter list?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 1/23/2004 6:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Does anybody wanna share their heckler filter list for this ng?

I have gathered so far that the following

Mark Probert (email changes daily)
David Wright ([email hidden])
HCN ([email hidden])
Orac ([email hidden])
Rich Shewmaker ([email hidden])
Happy Oyster ([email hidden])
[email hidden] ([email hidden])
Peter Bowditch ([email hidden])

visit the ng for the purpose of heckling, not out
of an actual interest in alternative medicine
or in helping out people.

Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

Enter DC Sessions to show his purpose here.

Quoted message said:

Several, I suspect. Always, of course, with the
caveat that reading minds over a newsgroup is notoriously
unreliable. That said, Jan Drew is a very good instance
of someone whose posts are almost 100% devoted to negative
topics

That would be exposing organized medicine, it's evils and it's brainwashed
members and their lies.

and almost never have anything positive to contribute

Quoted message said:

on the subject of alternative medicine.

Where is your list of those you have helped??

In AltWorld, it is appropriate to divulge confidential information. In
RealWorld, we maintain the individual's privacy.

Thank you for providing me with another opportunity to make a valid
distinction.

Quoted message said:

I have posted a partial list of mine.

Like they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Do show us who and how you have helped.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark Probert" [email hidden]
Date: 1/25/2004 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 1/23/2004 6:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In <[email hidden]>, soft-eng wrote:

> Does anybody wanna share their heckler filter list for this ng?
>
> I have gathered so far that the following
>
> Mark Probert (email changes daily)
> David Wright ([email hidden])
> HCN ([email hidden])
> Orac ([email hidden])
> Rich Shewmaker ([email hidden])
> Happy Oyster ([email hidden])
> [email hidden] ([email hidden])
> Peter Bowditch ([email hidden])
>
> visit the ng for the purpose of heckling, not out
> of an actual interest in alternative medicine
> or in helping out people.
>
> Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

Enter DC Sessions to show his purpose here.

Quoted message said:

Several, I suspect. Always, of course, with the
caveat that reading minds over a newsgroup is notoriously
unreliable. That said, Jan Drew is a very good instance
of someone whose posts are almost 100% devoted to negative
topics

That would be exposing organized medicine, it's evils and it's brainwashed
members and their lies.

and almost never have anything positive to contribute

Quoted message said:

on the subject of alternative medicine.

Where is your list of those you have helped??

In AltWorld, it is appropriate to divulge confidential information

Umm, let's see a list of those helped posted on the net.

Your attemp to divert falls flat.

Quoted message said:

Do show us who and how you have helped.

Quoted message said:

Jan

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark Probert" [email hidden]
Date: 1/25/2004 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

>Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
>From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
>Date: 1/23/2004 6:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>
>In <[email hidden]>, soft-eng wrote:
>
>> Does anybody wanna share their heckler filter list for this ng?
>>
>> I have gathered so far that the following
>>
>> Mark Probert (email changes daily)
>> David Wright ([email hidden])
>> HCN ([email hidden])
>> Orac ([email hidden])
>> Rich Shewmaker ([email hidden])
>> Happy Oyster ([email hidden])
>> [email hidden] ([email hidden])
>> Peter Bowditch ([email hidden])
>>
>> visit the ng for the purpose of heckling, not out
>> of an actual interest in alternative medicine
>> or in helping out people.
>>
>> Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

Enter DC Sessions to show his purpose here.

>Several, I suspect. Always, of course, with the
>caveat that reading minds over a newsgroup is notoriously
>unreliable. That said, Jan Drew is a very good instance
>of someone whose posts are almost 100% devoted to negative
>topics

That would be exposing organized medicine, it's evils and it's

brainwashed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

members and their lies.

and almost never have anything positive to contribute
>on the subject of alternative medicine.

Where is your list of those you have helped??

In AltWorld, it is appropriate to divulge confidential information

Umm, let's see a list of those helped posted on the net.

Your attemp to divert falls flat.

Only if one does not know how you selectively snip to distort meaning.

snip

In said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 1/23/2004 6:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Does anybody wanna share their heckler filter list for this ng?

I have gathered so far that the following

Mark Probert (email changes daily)
David Wright ([email hidden])
HCN ([email hidden])
Orac ([email hidden])
Rich Shewmaker ([email hidden])
Happy Oyster ([email hidden])
[email hidden] ([email hidden])
Peter Bowditch ([email hidden])

visit the ng for the purpose of heckling, not out
of an actual interest in alternative medicine
or in helping out people.

Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

Enter DC Sessions to show his purpose here.

Quoted message said:

Several, I suspect. Always, of course, with the
caveat that reading minds over a newsgroup is notoriously
unreliable. That said, Jan Drew is a very good instance
of someone whose posts are almost 100% devoted to negative
topics

That would be exposing organized medicine, it's evils and it's brainwashed
members and their lies.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Quoted message said:

and almost never have anything positive to contribute

Quoted message said:

on the subject of alternative medicine.

Where is your list of those you have helped??

I have posted a partial list of mine.

Like they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Do show us who and how you have helped.

HIPPA

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

If you want, I'll supply you with the other two e-mail addresses I
sometimes post under.

Maybe I was wrong to include you here -- you are a source
of data for the newgroup, and I think your biases may become
clear to you over time.

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and
belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs,
that cause you to ignore actual evidence. And your bias in favor
of one particular method of evidence collection over all
others. Though I hope this is becoming or will become clear to
you over time.

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?
>
> If you want, I'll supply you with the other two e-mail addresses I
> sometimes post under.

Maybe I was wrong to include you here -- you are a source
of data for the newgroup, and I think your biases may become
clear to you over time.

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and
belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs,
that cause you to ignore actual evidence. And your bias in favor
of one particular method of evidence collection over all
others. Though I hope this is becoming or will become clear to
you over time.

I freely admit that I am biased in favor of verifable evidence and not some
yarn that could be cooked up in the back room of a advertising agency or
some other nefarious dwelling.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and
belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs,
that cause you to ignore actual evidence.

Actually, my only bias in this the matters generally discussed on this
newsgroup is for verifiable observations, well-designed clinical trials,
and good science. I've never denied that. As a consequence of that bias,
I'm also biased *against* lousy data, unverifiable anecdotal evidence
and testimonials, poorly designed clinical trials, and crappy science,
of which there is far too much in this newsgroup Emotion has little to
do with it, in marked contrast to you and some others here, who seem to
think that because something sounds good it must BE good.

Quoted message said:

And your bias in favor
of one particular method of evidence collection over all
others.

The scientific method is FAR more than merely a "method of evidence
collection" (indeed, the exact method of evidence collection is probably
less important to the scientific method than the overall process of
hypothesis testing), but I'll let your ignorant comment pass for the
moment, because it is late and I'm just too tired to explain it to you
in depth yet again. Maybe tomorrow or this weekend. In the meantime,
until you or someone else can demonstrate to me a "method of evidence
collection" that is superior to the scientific method and show me WHY it
is superior with concrete examples, I'm sticking with the best, most
objective method we have right now. So far you have failed to do so.
Certainly testimonials and anecdotal evidence do not qualify.

Quoted message said:

Though I hope this is becoming or will become clear to
you over time.

It is not, and, unless you can come up with better arguments and
evidence, very likely will not.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark ProbertFebruary 3, 2004" [email hidden]
Date: 2/3/04 4:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

I cannot filter mark pervert. How can I block this pervert?

Thanks,

DrC PhD.

I blocked the marked pervert by blocking domain names. He varies it a bit so
you have to put in a bunch of combinations. If you have been blocking him so
far go to your filter list and examine the domain names used so far. I
haven't seen the pervert for a couple of months now so it works.

Bets of luck

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark ProbertFebruary 3, 2004" [email hidden]
Date: 2/3/04 4:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

I cannot filter mark pervert. How can I block this pervert?

Thanks,

DrC PhD.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark ProbertFebruary 3, 2004" [email hidden]
Date: 2/3/04 4:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

I cannot filter mark pervert. How can I block this pervert?

Who is Mark Pervert?

As a general rule, if you do not like reading someone's posts, then use your
next button, or stop reading the newsgroup.

Quoted message said:

Thanks,

DrC PhD.

PHD? *Ph*ony*D*oc?

Thanks for the compliment.

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

Quoted message said:

I blocked the marked pervert by blocking domain names. He varies it a bit

so

Quoted message said:

you have to put in a bunch of combinations. If you have been blocking him

so

Quoted message said:

far go to your filter list and examine the domain names used so far. I
haven't seen the pervert for a couple of months now so it works.

Bets of luck

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark ProbertFebruary 3, 2004" [email hidden]
Date: 2/3/04 4:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

I cannot filter mark pervert. How can I block this pervert?

Thanks,

DrC PhD.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: "Mark ProbertFebruary 3, 2004" [email hidden]
Date: 2/3/04 4:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

I cannot filter mark pervert. How can I block this pervert?

Thanks,

Charles, what you need to do is start using 30 grit sandpaper in lieu of toilet
paper. Over time, you'll see less and less of Mark and the MHA faithful, but
you've got to stick with the program for many months before it becomes fully
effective.

Quoted message said:

DrC PhD.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and
belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs,
that cause you to ignore actual evidence.

Actually, my only bias in this the matters generally discussed on this
newsgroup is for verifiable observations, well-designed clinical trials,
and good science. I've never denied that. As a consequence of that bias,
I'm also biased *against* lousy data, unverifiable anecdotal evidence
and testimonials, poorly designed clinical trials, and crappy science,
of which there is far too much in this newsgroup Emotion has little to
do with it, in marked contrast to you and some others here, who seem to
think that because something sounds good it must BE good.

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even
that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people,
because the word comes in a certain format and with
a certain baggage.

To me, that means "unquestioning" acceptance.
You can't see that, but hopefully I have made
a lot of other people aware that your
acceptance is mere unquestioning acceptance
of a new variety. Not different in essence
from various unquestioningly obedient people
of the past.

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even
that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people,
because the word comes in a certain format and with
a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car?
If not, you are just taking the word of certain people.

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the
results of your actual, personal experience.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even
that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people,
because the word comes in a certain format and with
a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car?
If not, you are just taking the word of certain people.

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the
results of your actual, personal experience.

After that, he should test whether or not Hemlock is poison........

Quoted message said:

Peter Bowditch

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 2/6/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even
that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people,
because the word comes in a certain format and with
a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car?

This is a health newgroup, it you wish to divert to cars, find an appropriate
place of discussion.

Before David Wright climbs your frame.

Jan

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

Quoted message said:

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even
that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people,
because the word comes in a certain format and with
a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car?
If not, you are just taking the word of certain people.

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the
results of your actual, personal experience.

Your confusion appears to be total!

I am not the one who claims everything must be
verified according to a certain "repeatable" methodology.

I am the one who is willing to listen to
multiple sources of evidence.

If you can't even understand the logic of such
a simple argument and who is arguing what,
no wonder you are so fundamentally confused about
other things as well!

(Ilsa9) said:

Quoted message said:

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the
results of your actual, personal experience.

After that, he should test whether or not Hemlock is poison........

Not exactly, first try the Hemlock then drive...

You know, drinking *and* driving !
--

"I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
-Yoshimo

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

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests
involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may
save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true",
the only true way is to take lots of real people
(NOT dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped
cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash
test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail,
according to Orac, the "airbags save lives"
is so much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled
medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview.
It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there
is some kind of thought-contortion that will
make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why
your comment was directed towards the wrong participant,
and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests
involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may
save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true",
the only true way is to take lots of real people
(NOT dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped
cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash
test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail,
according to Orac, the "airbags save lives"
is so much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled
medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview.
It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there
is some kind of thought-contortion that will
make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why
your comment was directed towards the wrong participant,
and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

A control group does not have to have a placebo to be valid. A crash test
dummy does not know if it's car has air bags or not. A cell culture does
not know if it has been given a drug, etc.. Therefore a control group in
this case doesn't require a placebo.

If you are testing a drug, treatment etc, both groups (assuming they are
sentient) need to know something has been given to them thus the need for a
placebo.

carabelli