Yeah, I can see why a Liberal would not want to address that POINT and dismiss it out of hand.
Doesn't mean it isn't true, just means you are unable or unwilling to address it... How "Scientific" of you. ============================ Any time you want to compare scientific knowledge with me, Gaar, I'll play. You are posting words written by a man with no study to back them up. Get it? There are multiple medical journals devoted to each and every medical specialty out there.....google one and peruse it if you doubt me. Every one of them is packed full of medical studies....performed ala the scientific method of postulating a hypothesis and testing it....and applying applicable statistical analysis to the results. I am being scientific in asking for the date used to reach his conclusion....something you don't even care to see before accepting his premises....hook, line and sinker. See the difference? I'm not calling the guy a fraud....I'm asking to see the data he used to confirm his hypothesis. That is, indeed, how the world of science works. How "unscientific" and gullible of you to accept one practitioner's words...without even inquiring how he came about confirming his beliefs....if, in fact, he did. I guess we won't know. He didn't bother to post his data.....did he? That he didn't indicates that this is, indeed, an opinion piece achieved without the benefit of scientific information gathering that accompanies any peer-reviewed and accepted research. You obviously haven't questioned the author in question's credentials....I find it odd that you're questioning mine. On Nov 16, 3:24 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal > responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government > meet their needs from cradle to grave." > > ====================== > > Yeah, I can see why a Liberal would not want to address that POINT and > dismiss it out of hand. > > Doesn't mean it isn't true, just means you are unable or unwilling to > address it... > > How "Scientific" of you. > > On Nov 16, 12:06 pm, OMS-II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I pointed out that psychiatry boasts the lowest medical board scores > > of any specialty. Furthermore, the guy discusses his beliefs....not > > backed up by any numbers achieved through scientifically accepted > > inquiry. Finally, it would be nice to know if the guy is a > > conservative. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you, but it is generally > > considered flawed research (if any was, indeed, conducted) > > > I didn't say he was wrong.....or right. I did say that it is the right > > of any person to question his credentials.....as it is to question > > what scientific research he conducted....if any......to determine the > > validity of his claims. I read the initial post....and re-read it. I > > see know statistical analysis, I see no double-blind studies > > involved....in fact, I see nothing other than one guy's opinion...with > > nothing to back it up from his peers. > > > His credentials are no more, or less, impressive than anyone else's > > I've seen in my med school...in fact, our professors have, if > > anything, more letters after their names than this guy does. While I'm > > not questioning that he is a psychiatrist, I am questioning his > > claims.....and how he arrived at them. I see nothing even remotely > > resembling scientific analysis in this piece. > > > On Nov 16, 2:41 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Until you have SHOWN that his "Theory" is somehow flawed, yes. > > > > And I have in FACT presented his "credentials" here, yet no one wants > > > to address that either... > > > > Interesting... > > > > On Nov 16, 11:39 am, 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
