| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2005 04:25:04 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
[snip...]
That workshop was a response to the Bush administration
manipulating their website. So good for the NCI for
reasserting their authority on the matter, but at
the same time it doesn't fill me with confidence they
were objective in their reaction.
"over 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy
and breast cancer risk"
A vast conspiracy?
Does there need to be one? No.
Such absurdities remain in your passive aggressive court...
You're the one claiming that single anti-abortion crusader is
more credible than the world's leading experts.
Again all you. I find the circumstances and exactly who
those experts were to be not conducive to open and fair
scientific dialogue.
Based solely on the claims of Brind.
If you have alternatives other than YOUR assumptions,
I assume that 100 of the world's experts are more credible
than someone who wants to make abortion illegal.
Although this is a misdirection it is almost a good point.
Why is it a misdirection you ask? I do not consider
the NCI workshop to be the unambiguous opinion of
100('s) of the world's experts.
It is almost a good point because I don't find
him "more" credible for two reasons. One, the credibility
of these experts is not on the line since it is a
workshop summary being discussed. Two, I don't
consider Brind more credible or as having a monopoly
on the truth or any such claptrap; I do think he has
salient points that I have yet to be answered to my
satisfaction. SOME of which can be found to be indeed
true with a little research. (pre-term Melbye gap)
Scientific reviews are not necessarily a democratic
process! Despite my love of science I am knowledgeable
enough to be aware of its weaknesses, and how those
have led to historic failures. (some quite recent...
Vioxx, BSE, anthrax exposure opinions anybody?)
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Some of which are based on facts that you cannot
insult or ad hominem away. (I'm not speaking of myself
this round, you've been unusually civil to me this time,
but of Dr. Brind. Statements which despite their overall
truth are meant to cast doubt on his arguments, without
addressing them.)
Partly because he was THERE,
As were 100+ others. But you're a narrow-minded ideologue
who prefers anti-abortion propaganda to the truth.
Well based on your continued snippage
Tough *****.
It reflects poorly on you.
Less crap is better than more crap.
If you don't like it then write less crap.
Good advice. :')
You are indeed wise.
Ray the wise... has a sarcastic tone to it.
and strawmen
Weren't any.
Laugh!
I wonder if Deborah would agree with that.
I wonder why you anti-abortion loons
are so habitually dishonest.
They are frustrated, whereas I am well informed...
hence making you frustrated. Go back to throwing
misdirection at Deborah:
http://tinyurl.com/6bqsa
or enlightening us with your profound understanding
of evolution:
http://tinyurl.com/4nzgk
You were funnier in those days;
I miss them dearly... seriously though,
from what I can tell you've improved a bit.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
07 Jan 2005 05:11:10 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration. That's a fact Brind and you
refuse to accept.
Some of which are based on facts that you cannot
insult or ad hominem away. (I'm not speaking of myself
this round, you've been unusually civil to me this time,
but of Dr. Brind. Statements which despite their overall
truth are meant to cast doubt on his arguments, without
addressing them.)
When Brind gets credible allies then I'll look at what he has to say.
To date he has demonstrated that he is far more interested in
attacking abortion than he is in finding the truth.
and strawmen
Weren't any.
Laugh!
I wonder if Deborah would agree with that.
I wonder why you anti-abortion loons
are so habitually dishonest.
They are frustrated, whereas I am well informed...
Frustrated at not being able to force women to suffer and obey.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
10 Jan 2005 02:33:59 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
Ever hear of Chomsky, you strike me as the type
who has... he's one of the smartest people alive,
he'd disapprove of your above statement. (based on
the fact he supported a holocaust denial author
because he thinks its crucial to have freedom
of expression, and hence freedom of consideration
of those expressions)
Some of which are based on facts that you cannot
insult or ad hominem away. (I'm not speaking of myself
this round, you've been unusually civil to me this time,
but of Dr. Brind. Statements which despite their overall
truth are meant to cast doubt on his arguments, without
addressing them.)
When Brind gets credible allies then
I'll look at what he has to say.
Dr. Daling is an ally insofar as the concept
of reporting bias is concerned; but I think that
is besides the point. You've stated you
won't even bother looking... how am I to
interpret that? As open-minded and fair?
Or otherwise?
To date he has demonstrated that he is far
more interested in attacking abortion than
he is in finding the truth.
You haven't looked so you wouldn't know!
In this thread I have presented and represented
a point that is clear and verifiable. Brind does
not need "allies" when the things he is using
to back up his position come from the very
people who are arguing against him. (Melbye et al)
But you look the other way proudly, as if your
ignorance is somehow justified in your hatred
for his politics. To be brutally honest that
is disturbing to me. As disturbing as
anti-abortionists murdering doctors, no, but
close to it (for me) since we share the same
philosophy and priorities. Of a pro-choice,
informed world for women, hence it hits closer
to home as a result.
and strawmen
Weren't any.
Laugh!
I wonder if Deborah would agree with that.
I wonder why you anti-abortion loons
are so habitually dishonest.
They are frustrated, whereas I am well informed...
Frustrated at not being able to
force women to suffer and obey.
I agree with that, but of course that is a
simplification of the opposing position.
Some people really do feel the soul or whatever
uh, inhabits?, a fetus at inception. Regardless
of the validity of that notion and the distinct
lack of evidence for a soul... its
more important to them than compliant women.
Although I would agree the interpretation
of these core beliefs were influenced heavily
by the patriarchy of history; which I assume
is what your getting at.
"If men could get pregnant,
abortion would be a sacrament."
- Florynce Kennedy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
11 Jan 2005 03:44:26 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are subhuman and
should be exterminated.
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
I have considered them. I don't find them credible.
Some of which are based on facts that you cannot
insult or ad hominem away. (I'm not speaking of myself
this round, you've been unusually civil to me this time,
but of Dr. Brind. Statements which despite their overall
truth are meant to cast doubt on his arguments, without
addressing them.)
When Brind gets credible allies then
I'll look at what he has to say.
Dr. Daling is an ally insofar as the concept
of reporting bias is concerned; but I think that
is besides the point. You've stated you
won't even bother looking... how am I to
interpret that? As open-minded and fair?
Or otherwise?
Brind has established himself as being anti-abortion to the point of
being dishonest. Repeatedly. When the world's experts contradict ihm
them I'm going to presume that he's up to his usual games.
To date he has demonstrated that he is far
more interested in attacking abortion than
he is in finding the truth.
You haven't looked so you wouldn't know!
Yes, I have, and yes, I do. Brind has made up his mind and is looking
for justification. That's not the mark of a credible scientist.
That's the mark of a zealot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
11 Jan 2005 05:57:54 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
I have considered them.
I don't find them credible.
Okay, I'm unsure why you disbelieve Brind...
but at least you're stating it as a personal
opinion. The aspects I CAN check have shown
themselves to be credible. The rest are up
in the air and I try to remain neutral on
their validity.
Some of which are based on facts that you cannot
insult or ad hominem away. (I'm not speaking of myself
this round, you've been unusually civil to me this time,
but of Dr. Brind. Statements which despite their overall
truth are meant to cast doubt on his arguments, without
addressing them.)
When Brind gets credible allies then
I'll look at what he has to say.
Dr. Daling is an ally insofar as the concept
of reporting bias is concerned; but I think that
is besides the point. You've stated you
won't even bother looking... how am I to
interpret that? As open-minded and fair?
Or otherwise?
Brind has established himself as being anti-abortion
to the point of being dishonest. Repeatedly. When the
world's experts contradict ihm them I'm going to presume
that he's up to his usual games.
And I repeatedly request you show how Brind has
been dishonest in his research. It is certainly
an easy thing to believe given Brind's politics,
but I require evidence. I have yet to come across
any and you haven't presented anything as yet to
confirm Brind as dishonest or up to any "games".
The closest I can come to agreeing with you is that
Brind does focus more on positive results, but I
would hardly consider that a "game", since I also
do not consider your focus on null/negative results
as a game. It's simply what you use to back-up your
preconceptions. The difference is Brind has done
far more research than you, and does have the
background to examine it critically.
To date he has demonstrated that he is far
more interested in attacking abortion than
he is in finding the truth.
You haven't looked so you wouldn't know!
Yes, I have, and yes, I do. Brind has made up his
mind and is looking for justification. That's not
the mark of a credible scientist.
That's the mark of a zealot.
A point that would be sufficient for those
who have made up their minds prior to examining
the evidence. Even if I agree with you, which
isn't hard given Brind is "born again"... I find
it entirely detached from the research which has
occurred for the most part without Brind. Also
there are zealots on the pro-choice side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
11 Jan 2005 02:57:44 PM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship" it would appear that
your complaint is a non sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
I have considered them.
I don't find them credible.
Okay, I'm unsure why you disbelieve Brind...
Because he's a bad scientist. He has his conclusion and is
looking for evidence to support it.
When Brind gets credible allies then
I'll look at what he has to say.
Dr. Daling is an ally insofar as the concept
of reporting bias is concerned; but I think that
is besides the point. You've stated you
won't even bother looking... how am I to
interpret that? As open-minded and fair?
Or otherwise?
Brind has established himself as being anti-abortion
to the point of being dishonest. Repeatedly. When the
world's experts contradict ihm them I'm going to presume
that he's up to his usual games.
And I repeatedly request you show how Brind has
been dishonest in his research.
Notice that the world's experts disagree with him.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
14 Jan 2005 03:11:10 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship"
it would appear that your complaint is a non
sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
LOL! Yet another obvious example of your capacity
to be narrowly focused while trying to paint my
arguments as "stupid" or "lunacy", in the end
making yourself look as such. Chomsky and others
are fighting it in countries with the least
government censorship to help them avoid that
slippery path.
No "broad government censorphip"... why are
you assuming I'm talking about the United
States? This specific incident happened in
France... futhermore do you mean to tell me
there is no broad censorship in China? Do you
think people should not fight censorship when
they see it?
Also, there isn't a need for government
censorship in the developed world if media
outlets are willing to censor themselves in
order to produce manufactured consent.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/index.html
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
I have considered them.
I don't find them credible.
Okay, I'm unsure why you disbelieve Brind...
Because he's a bad scientist.
He has his conclusion and is
looking for evidence to support it.
As do you. So why should I believe you over
Brind? Give me specific evidence of Brind
being a bad scientist. (Specific meaning not
saying he believes in the ABC link, which also
includes some pro-choice scientists like
Dr. Daling.)
When Brind gets credible allies then
I'll look at what he has to say.
Dr. Daling is an ally insofar as the concept
of reporting bias is concerned; but I think that
is besides the point. You've stated you
won't even bother looking... how am I to
interpret that? As open-minded and fair?
Or otherwise?
Brind has established himself as being anti-abortion
to the point of being dishonest. Repeatedly. When the
world's experts contradict ihm them I'm going to presume
that he's up to his usual games.
And I repeatedly request you show how Brind has
been dishonest in his research.
Notice that the world's experts disagree with him.
I notice you keep saying (and implying)
the NCI workshop rendered (the carefully
considered and objective) consensus opinions
of world experts, as if saying it over and
over will make it a fact; rather than your
personal view constructed by NCI press
releases.
Dr. Brind's account indicates something
less naive and straightforward occurred.
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/abc_nci.htm
You can dismiss it if you wish, but without
a factual reason (apart from Brind's
politics) to do so... its the lazy, perhaps
even idealogue thing to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
14 Jan 2005 04:33:01 PM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship"
it would appear that your complaint is a non
sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
[...]
No "broad government censorphip"... why are
you assuming I'm talking about the United
States?
Why are you assuming that I'm not referring to the report
on abortion?
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
I have considered them.
I don't find them credible.
Okay, I'm unsure why you disbelieve Brind...
Because he's a bad scientist.
He has his conclusion and is
looking for evidence to support it.
As do you.
Now you're resorting to the childish "I know you are but what am I?"
So why should I believe you over
Brind?
I never said that you show, halfwit. I pointed out that 100 experts
on the subject are far more credible than one biased anti-abortion
ideologue.
Brind has established himself as being anti-abortion
to the point of being dishonest. Repeatedly. When the
world's experts contradict ihm them I'm going to presume
that he's up to his usual games.
And I repeatedly request you show how Brind has
been dishonest in his research.
Notice that the world's experts disagree with him.
I notice you keep saying (and implying)
the NCI workshop rendered (the carefully
considered and objective) consensus opinions
of world experts, as if saying it over and
over will make it a fact; rather than your
personal view constructed by NCI press
releases.
So you're claiming a conspiracy to suppress the truth and that only
Brind is telling the truth, and the fact that Brind has an admitted
anti-abortion bias isn't relevant.
You're nuts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
16 Jan 2005 05:31:48 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed
account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship"
it would appear that your complaint is a non
sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
[...]
No "broad government censorphip"... why are
you assuming I'm talking about the United
States?
Why are you assuming that I'm not referring to the
report on abortion?
My mistake, I was getting a little sidetracked there
with the Chomsky line of discussion. As previously
hinted in the Frontline documentary on the drug review
process it does not take much to make a workshop or
review hostile to dissenting opinions.
Did it happen here? Brind says so.
You disbelieve him based on his politics;
and that's okay I guess. But I find it
a poor rationale. Do I believe Bring without
skepticism and fact checking... of course not!
But what I have been able to find does indeed
corroborate Brind! As to what my opinion is
of the uncorroborated claims, I'm inclined to
believe them giving Brind has shown himself
to be trustworthy.
If you have evidence to the contrary...
please show me! I don't want to be listening to
someone who is a liar, or lazy, or simply has
an anti-abortion agenda.
And as I've stated before,
since this workshop was a response to
political interferance I am very much
concerned it was reactionary rather than
scientific in its process.
I don't know how the hell you extrapolated that
to Brind or myself. Your capacity for
contradiction is impressive. How can you say Brind
is being deceptive when you haven't considered his
arguments?
I have considered them.
I don't find them credible.
Okay, I'm unsure why you disbelieve Brind...
Because he's a bad scientist.
He has his conclusion and is
looking for evidence to support it.
As do you.
Now you're resorting to the childish
"I know you are but what am I?"
Perhaps, but everything you have ever
written on the ABC subject corroborates
your bias on the matter. Your lack of
research and fact checking speaks for
itself. Your breadth of knowledge is
sufficient to scare away anti-abortionists
posters, but its depth ain't so good.
So why should I believe you over Brind?
I never said that you show, halfwit.
I pointed out that 100 experts
on the subject are far more credible than
one biased anti-abortion ideologue.
I would agree if that were the case. It is not.
Keep in mind Dr. Brind is an expert on this
subject as well.
Brind has established himself as being anti-abortion
to the point of being dishonest. Repeatedly. When the
world's experts contradict ihm them I'm going to presume
that he's up to his usual games.
And I repeatedly request you show how Brind has
been dishonest in his research.
Notice that the world's experts disagree with him.
I notice you keep saying (and implying)
the NCI workshop rendered (the carefully
considered and objective) consensus opinions
of world experts, as if saying it over and
over will make it a fact; rather than your
personal view constructed by NCI press
releases.
So you're claiming a conspiracy to suppress the
truth and that only Brind is telling the truth,
and the fact that Brind has an admitted
anti-abortion bias isn't relevant.
Of course it is relevant... it means (or I prefer
to say, reminds) the reader that skepticism needs
to be maintained, facts need to be checked and
corroborated prior to adhering to a point of view.
You're nuts.
I try to keep myself sane in a world of
insanity... but sometimes it doesn't seem
worth it. Hence the broad appeal of mind
altering substances.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
16 Jan 2005 07:57:46 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed
account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship"
it would appear that your complaint is a non
sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
[...]
No "broad government censorphip"... why are
you assuming I'm talking about the United
States?
Why are you assuming that I'm not referring to the
report on abortion?
My mistake, I was getting a little sidetracked there
with the Chomsky line of discussion. As previously
hinted in the Frontline documentary on the drug review
process it does not take much to make a workshop or
review hostile to dissenting opinions.
Did it happen here? Brind says so.
Oh well then, it must be so. The fact that Brind is an abortion
opponent and has an agenda isn't relevant. That over a hundred
of the world's experts conclude that there is no link is clearly
some sort of conspiracy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
16 Jan 2005 11:07:15 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies
for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed
account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared
to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and
truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship"
it would appear that your complaint is a non
sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
[...]
No "broad government censorphip"... why are
you assuming I'm talking about the United
States?
Why are you assuming that I'm not referring to the
report on abortion?
My mistake, I was getting a little sidetracked there
with the Chomsky line of discussion. As previously
hinted in the Frontline documentary on the drug review
process it does not take much to make a workshop or
review hostile to dissenting opinions.
Did it happen here? Brind says so.
[big snip by Ray...]
Oh well then, it must be so. The fact that Brind
is an abortion opponent and has an agenda isn't
relevant.
Is Brind the only one at the workshop with
an agenda? I ask that you please apply that
skepticism a bit more broadly.
That over a hundred of the world's
experts conclude that there is no link
Your characterization is wrong.
Take the blinders off Ray.
is clearly some sort of conspiracy.
If the workshop ignored evidence and
epidemiological gaps which contradicts
their conclusions, or at the very least
indicates the issue is unclear, then I
would confidently deem the workshop to
be reactionary based on corroborated
facts.
As to a "conspiracy" there is just Brind's
say so... but even Brind paints a picture
of hostility at the workshops organizers,
rather than a conspiracy. However it is a
plausible explanation for the NCI's
conclusions; especially given the context
in which the workshop was convened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
18 Jan 2005 04:57:51 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No. There isn't a need for lying or conspiracies
for
there to be a suppression of opinion and a hostile
environment. I feel his story is a more detailed
account
of what occurred at the NCI workshop when compared
to
a rather short and bland summary.
Why do you assume that he is objective and
truthful?
I don't. Not for a second.
And yet you insist that he is right
and everybody else is wrong.
Not necessarily, but as stated he has made good points.
Unless he's being deceptive.
Not all ideas deserve consideration.
That's a fact Brind and you refuse to accept.
Huh? Okay there Comrade. Not only is that wrong,
Sure, let's teach schoolkids the idea that Jews are
subhuman and should be exterminated.
I don't know what the author was writing about,
but the point Chomsky was trying to get across
is a world (country) that allows broad government
censorship is that much closer to such atrocities;
and/or allowing them to occur elsewhere unchecked.
Since there is no "broad government censorship"
it would appear that your complaint is a non
sequitur. Paranoid lunacy.
[...]
No "broad government censorphip"... why are
you assuming I'm talking about the United
States?
Why are you assuming that I'm not referring to the
report on abortion?
My mistake, I was getting a little sidetracked there
with the Chomsky line of discussion. As previously
hinted in the Frontline documentary on the drug review
process it does not take much to make a workshop or
review hostile to dissenting opinions.
Did it happen here? Brind says so.
[big snip by Ray...]
Oh well then, it must be so. The fact that Brind
is an abortion opponent and has an agenda isn't
relevant.
Is Brind the only one at the workshop with
an agenda? I ask that you please apply that
skepticism a bit more broadly.
Lessee, on one hand we have Brind with an admitted bias, and on the
other hand we have 100 experts in the field.
Tough call. But Brind is anti-abortion so he must be right.
That over a hundred of the world's
experts conclude that there is no link
Your characterization is wrong.
So you claim.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
18 Jan 2005 11:03:06 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
[big snip by Louis...]
My mistake, I was getting a little sidetracked there
with the Chomsky line of discussion. As previously
hinted in the Frontline documentary on the drug review
process it does not take much to make a workshop or
review hostile to dissenting opinions.
Did it happen here? Brind says so.
[big snip by Ray...]
Oh well then, it must be so. The fact that Brind
is an abortion opponent and has an agenda isn't
relevant.
Is Brind the only one at the workshop with
an agenda? I ask that you please apply that
skepticism a bit more broadly.
Lessee, on one hand we have Brind with an admitted
bias, and on the other hand we have 100 experts in
the field.
Tough call. But Brind is anti-abortion so he must
be right.
It isn't tough if you do the research.
Parts that can be corroborated turn out
to be right. Assuming Brind's credibility is
nill is lazy, and not an effective argument;
regardless of how many times you repeat it.
That over a hundred of the world's
experts conclude that there is no link
Your characterization is wrong.
So you claim.
[small snip by Ray...]
Indeed, but since I'm refuting your opinion,
it doesn't take much to undermine it.
The workshop made the conclusions;
not each individual expert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts |
19 Jan 2005 04:31:13 AM |
|
|
<louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
My mistake, I was getting a little sidetracked there
with the Chomsky line of discussion. As previously
hinted in the Frontline documentary on the drug review
process it does not take much to make a workshop or
review hostile to dissenting opinions.
Did it happen here? Brind says so.
[big snip by Ray...]
Oh well then, it must be so. The fact that Brind
is an abortion opponent and has an agenda isn't
relevant.
Is Brind the only one at the workshop with
an agenda? I ask that you please apply that
skepticism a bit more broadly.
Lessee, on one hand we have Brind with an admitted
bias, and on the other hand we have 100 experts in
the field.
Tough call. But Brind is anti-abortion so he must
be right.
It isn't tough if you do the research.
People alreday have done the research. But as I wrote before, Brind
is anti-abortion and so he must be write, and never mind what anybody
else says.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
