OMS-II Naaah, we're all supposed to just tale his and mark's word for it. I mean, they are both right-wing conservatives. How could they possibly be wrong or biased about anything? ;-)
On Nov 16, 1:39 pm, OMS-II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, you need to make an argument which would CAUSE the need for > such an assessment. > =============================== > ????? > > We should just assume that he is, indeed, a "top psychiatrist" who is > free from bias, who has researched this "malady" in accordance with > generally accepted scientific research methology, including use of > double-blinded studies involving control groups and study groups? > > One of the first things we were taught in med school was to question > any/all submitted research papers to look for author bias and > consistent use of scientifically valid methodology in the research > conducted. This piece looks like an opinion piece. How did this guy > vote (and yes....it is relevant)? > > On Nov 16, 2:31 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Again, you need to make an argument which would CAUSE the need for > > such an assessment. > > > You have not. > > > Had you addressed ANYTHING the man said, and shown it to be of flawed > > Psychiatric theory, then it would be well and good to question such > > things. > > > When your ONLY Rebuttal is about the man, you are in FACT commiting an > > Ad Hominem Attack. > > > Not my fault you simpletons don't understand such basic Debate > > tactics, I am just calling you on them. > > > Now, calling someone ignorant, after SHOWING their ignorance, is all > > well and good as well. It is not an Ad Hominem to point out the facts > > that support your conclussion, as I have done here with you and > > holly... > > > Now, again, care to address ANYTHING the man said, or just make this > > about how things are said, like holly does here day in and day out? > > > Are you going to become just another of the Loony Liberals here too > > wncs? > > > On Nov 16, 11:26 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Read the title line of the original post: ..."concludes top > > > psychiatrist" is part of the post. Therefore, it is entirely within > > > Hollywood's or anyone else's rights to question any part of this post, > > > including the credentials of tis "top psychiatrist." No where did I > > > see Hollywood call him a name or anything of the sort. > > > As I said, if he called him an ignorant ass, then I could understand > > > your point. > > > > On Nov 16, 2:14 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Asked and answered. > > > > > Care to discuss anything he has said, or just discuss him? > > > > > You understand that Ad Hominem is Latin for "against the man", right? > > > > > So when you concentrate your argument "against the man" that is > > > > presenting it, you are in fact commiting an Ad Hominem attack. > > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > > Now, had you questioned his "Theory" and SHOWN it to be flawed in a > > > > general psychiatrive sense, then it would be well and good to question > > > > his credentioals. When you make that your ONLY REBUTTAL, it is in > > > > FACT an Ad Hominem Attack. > > > > > On Nov 16, 11:10 am, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > No, saying that his momma is a ho or that he is an ignorant ass is a > > > > > personal attack. Asking for someone's credentials when it is claimed > > > > > that they are a "top psychiatrist" and make sweeping generalizations > > > > > about huge portions of the population is in no way an attack. > > > > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, holly... > > > > > > > When you ignore his argument to only try to discuss him, you are in > > > > > > fact commiting an Ad Hominem attack. > > > > > > > Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding. > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 11:00 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Gaar, > > > > > > > > Your getting as hyper-sensitive as a pre-teen little girl. Asking > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > a man's credentials is an ATTACK? Ain't you the delicate one? > > > > > > > Get real lad. Anyone can play war-of-the-experts. > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:43 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 7:43 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > WHO says Dr. Rossiter is a "top psychiatrist"? > > > > > > > > > Just like a Loony Liberal. > > > > > > > > > Instead of addressing ANYTHING the man asserts, attack him > > > > > > > > personally > > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > Same old shit, just another day with these Loony Liberals. > > > > > > > > > No surprise there.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
