Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > GL: On this final point, I ask: As a good > scientist, should you not have done this in the > first place? Rather than being a cowboy (to be > polite) shooting from the hip? If you were so very > right on what you wrote, why did you apologize to me > in private? >
Gilbert, Is calling me names such as cowboy being polite according to you? I apologized to you for causing you pain on Goanet by exposing the scientific flaws in your post, after you insinuated in two successive posts that I was a pseudo-scientist. My humble scientific opinion of the flaws in your post has not changed. > > So please do me a 'por favor'. As I have told you > before, talk to me in private about this experiment > and about cancer management in humans. Please live > by what you wrote to me and on this forum before. > Please be a gentleman and a man of your word. Is > that too much to ask from a colleague? > Most of my responses to you have been polite and respectful considering your supercilious public and private comments. I have never called you a pseudo-radiation oncologist, a pseudo-scientist or a cowboy. Some comments of mine have simply addressed the substance of your post in a dispassionate manner. Regarding the reference for the paper that describes the so-called mouse experiment as you did, I have tried hard to look for it in the medical literature databases and in the library, ever since I read your post in the "Science as a Religion" thread. I am unable to find such a paper published a few years ago, as you claim. I am disappointed that you are unable to provide me with a reference for it. That should have been a very simple task. But I request you one more time. Please tell me where you read the description of the mouse experiment that you provided on Goanet. On other matters, my comments are as follows. The cancer surgeon and researcher I mentioned is not a member of Goanet. So I will have to post his response myself. Thanks for giving me permission to do so. The problems I found with the science in your post would be clear to most unbiased and impartial observers after I post his response. I asked your permission (and his) to post his response on Goanet. I did not ask your permission to discuss your post with him on the phone. I did not need your permission to do that. BTW, since you mention plagiarism, is your definition of it the same as that used by all reputed publishers? Could you also tell people whether or not there is a difference between a radiation oncologist and an oncologist. Cheers, Santosh _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
