OT: How to debunk just about everything

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for
honesty of truth.
These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have the
capability of handling it.
Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories
shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when
this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead
abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming
the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the MHA
charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I had
included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and debunking
is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant to
MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for
honesty of truth.
These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it.
Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories
shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when
this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead
abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: How to debunk just about everything
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 2/25/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Nvermind Doug, this is the norm for hiim. Start off a discussion with a smart
alec question.

Furthermore he isn't interested in the truth, his interest is in belittling.

Jan

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming
the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the MHA
charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I had
included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and debunking
is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant to
MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for
honesty of truth.
These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it.
Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories
shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when
this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead
abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to
clean this group up. ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest the
rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not
just JCD. (Jan compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over
these weak minded perverts they cannot stop of their own free will so we
require their ISP's help to shut them off.

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming
the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for
honesty of truth.
These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it.
Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories
shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead
abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

It's on google somewhere, you would have to fins the original source.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to
clean this group up. ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest

the

Quoted message said:

rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not
just JCD. (Jan compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over
these weak minded perverts they cannot stop of their own free will so we
require their ISP's help to shut them off.

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics

spamming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
> Anth
>
>

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

honesty of truth.
These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it.
Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet

theories

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming
the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

No Anth, you are not the enemy.
You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for some
interesting discussion.

As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the
author does not seem to be able to tell the difference between debunking,
legitimate critisism, and trashing.

Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has
not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has. In
addition, where it has, it often does not hold up. And rather than
abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue
as if nothing has happened.
Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair
number of quacks, and these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public
duty.

want to say more, but baby is just waking up, and I won't have much time

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug said:

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming
the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

No Anth, you are not the enemy.
You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for some
interesting discussion.

As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the
author does not seem to be able to tell the difference between debunking,
legitimate critisism, and trashing.

Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with
ideologically-motivated or close-minded trashing. He makes no
distinction between the two.

Quoted message said:

Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has
not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has.

Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated
exactly the same as conventional medicine with regards to the sort of
evidence that is needed to show efficacy.

Quoted message said:

In
addition, where it has, it often does not hold up.

Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart
disease.

Quoted message said:

And rather than
abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue
as if nothing has happened.

Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional
medicine. When something in conventional medicine is shown to be
ineffective or less effective than something new, eventually the
inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to
change their practices. Occasionally it may even take a new generation
of doctors coming up through their training and into practice to
eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective treatments
die out.

Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown
not to be effective a very long time ago, but still adherents cling to
them.

Quoted message said:

Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair
number of quacks, and these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public
duty.

The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely
denounce the quacks. Indeed, they often defend the quacks.

[Snip]

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

Another Altie fascist grows...

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

Quoted message said:

Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to
clean this group up. ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest

the

Quoted message said:

rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not
just JCD. (Jan compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over
these weak minded perverts they cannot stop of their own free will so we
require their ISP's help to shut them off.

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics

spamming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is
responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
> Anth
>
>

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

honesty of truth.
These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it.
Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet

theories

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two..
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug said:

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics

spamming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter.
I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

responsible for line after line of garbage..
As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA
Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are

relevant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

MHA?
If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug
Anth

No Anth, you are not the enemy.
You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for some
interesting discussion.

As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the
author does not seem to be able to tell the difference between

debunking,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legitimate critisism, and trashing.

Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with
ideologically-motivated or close-minded trashing. He makes no
distinction between the two.

Quoted message said:

Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has.

Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated
exactly the same as conventional medicine with regards to the sort of
evidence that is needed to show efficacy.

Quoted message said:

In
addition, where it has, it often does not hold up.

Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart
disease.

Quoted message said:

And rather than
abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners

continue

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as if nothing has happened.

Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional
medicine. When something in conventional medicine is shown to be
ineffective or less effective than something new, eventually the
inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to
change their practices. Occasionally it may even take a new generation
of doctors coming up through their training and into practice to
eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective treatments
die out.

Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown
not to be effective a very long time ago, but still adherents cling to
them.

Quoted message said:

Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair
number of quacks, and these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a

public

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

duty.

The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely
denounce the quacks. Indeed, they often defend the quacks.

[Snip]

--
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: How to debunk just about everything
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 2/27/2004 10:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

It's on google somewhere, you would have to fins the original source.
Anth

ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/misc/misc.health.alternative

Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer?
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the

two..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

No, actually, it's you who seem to be confused between the two,
mistaking legitimate scientific skepticism for cynicism or
close-mindedness.

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

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

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two..
Anth

Sceptisism is when I debunk you.
Cynicism is when you debunk me.

See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......

Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it
can be hard to distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising something
that is close to your heart.
I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as sceptics
just demand a reasonable level of proof.
After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds
to believe it works?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer?
Anth

Of course not.
If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all
other alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well.
So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the liver fluke causes cancer?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

(First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of any
use in treating cancer because there's no studies showing it)
You quote a definitive answer to whether or not it does when I fact you
don't actually know.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer?
Anth

Of course not.
If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all
other alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well.
So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the liver fluke causes cancer?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the

two..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

Sceptisism is when I debunk you.
Cynicism is when you debunk me.

See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......

Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it
can be hard to distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising

something

Quoted message said:

that is close to your heart.
I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as sceptics
just demand a reasonable level of proof.

There you go with semantics - what is a reasonable level of proof?

That is when your cynicism comes in.
Cynicism is being a Cynic. Scepticism is being a sceptic.

Quoted message said:

After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable

grounds

Quoted message said:

to believe it works?

Everybodies 'reasonable grounds' are different when in fact you don't
actually know.
You can claim something doesn't work before it has been tested - typically
Hulda's cancer 'cure.'
I can claim something works when in fact I don't know.
In which case what is being talked about is personal opinion.

Just look at the way people pass the word 'cure' about on this forum.
Personally I don't like the word 'cure' because it is applied to so many
meanings.

Anth

Quoted message said:

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

(and it isn't even clear when applied)
For instance you get 100 patients with heart disease, they take 'Giles
Organic Offal Mix' All of them get well - their symptoms go away.
That is pretty much grounds to say they have been cured. (Just by the
definition of the word)
5 years later they all die from heart disease.
Hulda does this in her book - no long term follow ups - the xrays show the
tumours dissolving - the cancer is gone - that's about it.
She uses the word 'cure' also.
Anth

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

Also by definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cynicism
You can differentiate between the cynics in this newsgroup and the sceptics.
(To be fair they are on both sides)
Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in

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

Quoted message said:

(First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of any
use in treating cancer because there's no studies showing it)
You quote a definitive answer to whether or not it does when I fact you
don't actually know.
Anth

What do you mean I don't actually know?
[censored] is [censored], and you don't have to probe Hulda's methods too far to
find [censored]. I am not a medical doctor, I have just a amater interest in
the field. Probably based on my continuing desire to find out how things
work. I know a bit about cancer, and it is not caused by liver flukes (at
least not the cancers common in the western world). I know a lot about
electricity and ressonance, and HC's zapper is a useless device.
I am also quite good at evaluating test results.

I don't know everything, but that does not mean I know nothing.
And in this case I do actually know.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Doug said:

These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have the
capability of handling it.

These types of lists prove nothing, but do give an indication of the
stupidity and unscientificness of debunkers.

Quoted message said:

cold, hard reality

I love the bias that reality is cold and hard.