I thought so, and now, reading back through the posts, it appears from Molly's response that she thought so as well:
"While chemical balance is one part of our "health," claiming that it the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to be presenting the premise that our chemical balance produces our mood. I suggest that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery and juju works both ways, *and simply can't get away with it anymore may also apply to an outdated medical model.* The paradigm of science itself is changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up." On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2009/8/5 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > >> >> The 'you' in question appears to be general, and not specific. >> >> Am I wrong, Ian? >> > > No, you are not wrong. > > I find it astonishing that people are so desperate for one-upmanship in > this debate that they are making an appeal to ad hominem when there is none. > Absolutely none. Apparently the argument for non-medical healing is, if > you'll excuse me for saying so, in rather poor health. > > Ian > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
