General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Ronald Wilson Reagan: an epitaph

M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004 · 2004-06-12T12:19:33+00:00

"Jan" wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Subject: Ronald Wilson Reagan: an epitaph From: "Henry" [email hidden] Date: 6/11/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: We could all learn much from his example. When he was shot, his first prayer was for the shooter. He was never belittling and was a kind man. Thanks for this post. Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and permanent disability and Reagan did what for him?

Started by M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004 · 12 June 2004 · Last activity 13 June 2004 · 7 posts · 478 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postRe: Ronald Wilson Reagan: an epitaphM.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004 · 12 Jun 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–7Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #7Hawki63 · 13 Jun 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 12 June 2004
Last activity: 13 June 2004
Original author: M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004
Posts: 7
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 478
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004
Archived post

12 June 2004, 12:19 UTC #1

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Subject: Ronald Wilson Reagan: an epitaph
From: "Henry" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>
We could all learn much from his example. When he was shot, his first

prayer
Quoted message said:
was for the shooter. He was never belittling and was a kind man.
Thanks for this post.
Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and permanent
disability and Reagan did what for him?

Report
Henry
Archived post

12 June 2004, 14:16 UTC #2

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and

permanent
Quoted message said:
disability and Reagan did what for him?
One fundamental difference between "conventional medicine" and "alternative
health" is that the former is required to consider a statistically valid
body of evidence before drawing conclusions, while the latter selects
isolated events and presents them to support claims.
I will transfer that...
The "statistically valid body of evidence" regarding Ronald Reagan supports
the conclusion that he was an extraordinarily fine person who was personally
trusted by very skeptical people, who even welcomed him as their leader. You
selected an "isolated event" and challenged his ethics, morality, or
friendship.
Judging by your arguments here, Mark, you're *much* better than that.

Report
mdd
Archived post

12 June 2004, 15:09 UTC #3

Henry, I do believe that you are the most gullible poster here yet.
"Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and

permanent
Quoted message said:
disability and Reagan did what for him?
One fundamental difference between "conventional medicine" and

"alternative
Quoted message said:
health" is that the former is required to consider a statistically valid
body of evidence before drawing conclusions, while the latter selects
isolated events and presents them to support claims.
I will transfer that...
The "statistically valid body of evidence" regarding Ronald Reagan

supports
Quoted message said:
the conclusion that he was an extraordinarily fine person who was

personally
Quoted message said:
trusted by very skeptical people, who even welcomed him as their leader.

You
Quoted message said:
selected an "isolated event" and challenged his ethics, morality, or
friendship.
Judging by your arguments here, Mark, you're *much* better than that.

Report
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004
Archived post

12 June 2004, 21:53 UTC #4

"Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and

permanent
Quoted message said:
disability and Reagan did what for him?
One fundamental difference between "conventional medicine" and

"alternative
Quoted message said:
health" is that the former is required to consider a statistically valid
body of evidence before drawing conclusions, while the latter selects
isolated events and presents them to support claims.
I will transfer that...
The "statistically valid body of evidence" regarding Ronald Reagan

supports
Quoted message said:
the conclusion that he was an extraordinarily fine person who was

personally
Quoted message said:
trusted by very skeptical people, who even welcomed him as their leader.

You
Quoted message said:
selected an "isolated event" and challenged his ethics, morality, or
friendship.
Judging by your arguments here, Mark, you're *much* better than that.
Oh, I also hold him accountable for screwing veterans out of a substantial
portion of their health care fromthe VA at the time, and the eminination of
students benefits from Social Security which was supported by a specific
portion of the SS tax which was enacted at the time the program started.
Those were a lot of people.

Report
Gymmy Bob
Archived post

13 June 2004, 01:55 UTC #5

The fundamental difference is the "conventional" meedics use what they are
told to use and has proven itself by "conventional proving methods", right
or wrong.
The "alternative" crowd use what has worked for others, right or wrong and
can adapt to an individual if the technique doesn't work for that
individual. This is called "listening to your patient"
"Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and

permanent
Quoted message said:
disability and Reagan did what for him?
One fundamental difference between "conventional medicine" and

"alternative
Quoted message said:
health" is that the former is required to consider a statistically valid
body of evidence before drawing conclusions, while the latter selects
isolated events and presents them to support claims.
I will transfer that...
The "statistically valid body of evidence" regarding Ronald Reagan

supports
Quoted message said:
the conclusion that he was an extraordinarily fine person who was

personally
Quoted message said:
trusted by very skeptical people, who even welcomed him as their leader.

You
Quoted message said:
selected an "isolated event" and challenged his ethics, morality, or
friendship.
Judging by your arguments here, Mark, you're *much* better than that.

Report
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004
Archived post

13 June 2004, 13:45 UTC #6

"Gymmy Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
The fundamental difference is the "conventional" meedics use what they are
told to use and has proven itself by "conventional proving methods", right
or wrong.
The "alternative" crowd use what has worked for others, right or wrong and
can adapt to an individual if the technique doesn't work for that
individual. This is called "listening to your patient"
Missed it by a mile.
"Conventional medicine" uses what has been demonstrated to work, and adapts
these treatments to the individual patient.
"Alternative medicine" uses what has never been shown to work, and takes
advantage of spontaneous 'cures' to claim that it works.
Quoted message said:
"Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Meanwhile, a loyal friend was in thehospital with a head wound and

permanent
Quoted message said:
disability and Reagan did what for him?
One fundamental difference between "conventional medicine" and

"alternative
Quoted message said:
health" is that the former is required to consider a statistically valid
body of evidence before drawing conclusions, while the latter selects
isolated events and presents them to support claims.
I will transfer that...
The "statistically valid body of evidence" regarding Ronald Reagan

supports
Quoted message said:
the conclusion that he was an extraordinarily fine person who was

personally
Quoted message said:
trusted by very skeptical people, who even welcomed him as their leader.

You
Quoted message said:
selected an "isolated event" and challenged his ethics, morality, or
friendship.
Judging by your arguments here, Mark, you're *much* better than that.

Report
Hawki63
Archived post

13 June 2004, 21:33 UTC #7

Quoted message said:
Subject: Re: Ronald Wilson Reagan: an epitaph
From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" M.a.r.kP.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]
Date: 6/13/2004 6:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The fundamental difference is the "conventional" meedics use what they are
told to use and has proven itself by "conventional proving methods", right
or wrong.
The "alternative" crowd use what has worked for others, right or wrong and
can adapt to an individual if the technique doesn't work for that
individual. This is called "listening to your patient"
Missed it by a mile.
"Conventional medicine" uses what has been demonstrated to work, and adapts
these treatments to the individual patient.
"Alternative medicine" uses what has never been shown to work, and takes
advantage of spontaneous 'cures' to claim that it works.
I am always amazed at "those" who think we in EOM are TOLD to
do,,order,,treat..etc in any way....
Even as an NP I am "educated" to how to gather data,,make assessments,,then to
utilize ON MY OWN judgement what is appropriate in each situation..
as the saying goes "there is more than one way to skin a cat"....
therefore it is totally silly to think/belive that all in EOM are reading from
the same page....
individual judgments...appropriate response....utilizing whatever "evidence"
has shown to be effective ...etc etc
requires contuining education,,reading journals,,experience...etc
medical practice is not governed by anyone...
this bs about "doing what the book says"...hmmmm...does anyone know what this
book is?? cuz I was never issued one..
hawki.....

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread