Dear Tom, Your response revealed a lot about you.
At 10:42 PM 12/26/97 -0600, you wrote: > >Scott: > >Is this your correct email---noah? > >Scott Berner <[email protected]> Obviously, a rhetorical question as Scott's email address has been clearly posted for all to see, just as yours is. > >I would like you to answer the questions about >what formal scientific training you have had, degrees >and so forth. You say there were "questions" (plural) about Scott's credentials... I read the list pretty thoroughly, although I seldom contribute (and mainly this is out of a lack of *experience* with, not necessarily knowledge of, the subject(s) at hand) -- what questions? asked by whom? (information only, please). >It is one thing to have been formally >trained in rigorous programs with objective testing Tom, are you saying that you "have been formally trained in rigorous programs with objective testing"? You have posted an "MD" behind your name, so you are a medical doctor, no? From which institution(s) did you receive your degree(s)? Internship? Residency? Fellowships? Any other such experiences that you would be proud to list on a vitae? >to demonstrate that you have the ability to understand >scientific concepts So, you believe that "testing... demonstrates... ability"? So, hypothetically, if a sleep-deprived, caffeine-pumped, malnourished, lonely medical student tests poorly for the board exams (perhaps due to his or her sad state of dis-ease), he or she lacks "ability to understand scientific concepts"? Or, would that same student after a few days of rest, good food, therapeutic massage and sunshine be able to gain (or regain, as the case may be) "the ability to understand scientific concepts" without being subjected to another round of tests? (say, perhaps even through a self-paced course of study using text books, CD ROMs, visits with physician-teachers and those in need, or even... the Internet?). It's the nineties... could happen. >and it is quite another to pontificate "Pontificate" -- hmm, I'm curious why you chose this word. Do you mean, as in "pontiff", "bishop"... "pope"? >without having that training. Which "training" are you speaking of? >Most people who are capable >of competing with others intellectually in rigorous training >programs think twice before they offer opinions on those >things that they do not truly understand. Well, I'll grant you that, Tom. In fact, I'll bet if they're REALLY "intellectual" that they may even think thrice! And then never revisit the subject again. I mean if one "has been formally trained" (a sort of intellectual "baptism", perhaps?), why go back? Hell, why get out of bed? e.g., I have this sick friend who needs my help this weekend, but I think I'll go watch the intellectuals down at the stadium "rigorously competing"... it gives me such a charge! > >By the way, I appreciated Mike's comments. You >are clearly argumentative and offensive with your >comments and observations and the fact that you do >not recognize that this is the case is part of the main >problem. > >Your comments are set forth in "ad hominem" style, >which means that they are "directed to the man" >rather than to the subject matter. Fundamentalist >religious zealots absolutely cannot stand certain >groups of people and are the first to attack. They Wow, you met some zealots? Cool. Where? >need something to hate, You mean, like they're addicted... to hate? >and it seems that the AMA >is your "your"? Oh,... huh?!! You talking about our Scott here?! >target. There may be other things that you >"hate". Never mind that pharmaceutical companies >have done some marvelous things with research that >can help the little girl with diabetes far more than wood >alcohol diatribes. Never mind that there are many different >facets to medical care in this country. Let's form a hate >club and just throw it all away--- I never thought I'd be reading about "hate clubs" on a silver list -- cool! Hey, let's all meet at Club Hate Friday night! Not. >you are right and every- >body else is wrong! Noah and his ark? Tom, I say this in all humility... and especially after your comment about the little girl: "How did she get sick in the first place if God was there?" (the same God you entreat to help Scott in your closing?) ... last time I checked, Noah was right and everybody else was wrong. Oops! >This attitude is totally contrary to religion as I understand >it, but then I am not a fundamentalist. I note that you In closing, I don't know about "religion" or "fundamentalism", but will simply note that the historical record will show (as recorded in the book of Genesis, chapter 7, verse 21): "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished." >concluded that I was not religious simply because I asked >you if your religious sayings had any business on a list >about colloidal silver after you challenged me that my >comments were not appropriate on a silver list. You came >to the wrong conclusion with less basis for that conclusion >more quickly than anyone else I have ever met. This is >not how the scientific method works. > >Furthermore, it is clear that colloidal silver is a very >simple chemical concept. You make it (or better yet >purchase from a manufacturer with quality controls who >can accurately give you concentration levels rather than >crude estimates based on the color of the solution) with Okay, one last thing... now Tom, I'm with 'ya on this one buddy! >some electrodes to form a particle solution and take >it according to body weight. Therefore, what is all this >"knowledge" you are supposed to know that makes you >so valuable that the list cannot exist without you? >The intelligent mind simplifies, not complicates. But, let's give Scott a chance... maybe he'll have that quality control going in his manufacturing operation there real soon. And frankly, I need him on the list... that knowledge about the electrode gap spacing, body weight calculation... that's important stuff. >You do not know what you do not know, I know exactly how you feel. I have found this to be true throughout my life. >and that >is the major problem. Now, let's not think in terms of problems. We have no "problems", only "challenges". Is the glass half empty or half full? >As these observations are certain >to make you "mad", despite the fact that they are only >brutally honest, as are any other comments that point >out your inconsistencies or the fact that you may not >truly be of the caliber that you think you are ("noah" >to your sheep?), just keep in mind that if you want to Whoa, just a minute there mister, er uh I mean doctor. Noah was not about "honest opinions" & such -- you've got it all wrong. Those were the people who DROWNED. >be honest with others then you have to start with >yourself. Giving your "honest" opinion to everyone else >about things that you do not even begin to understand >is not being honest---it is being shallow and very >self-centered. Well, continuing the Noah theme, I guess there probably was quite a bit about The Flood that he "did not even begin to understand", but honestly, I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude for not questioning things back then, and if you want to call that "shallow" (or would that be "deep"?) and "self-centered", then hallelujah! (by the way, for those who may not be trained in pontifical ways, that's a word used to express praise, joy, or thanks). > >Sorry to break this news to you, as it will probably >go in one ear and out the other, Sort of passes through, just like the silver -- no accumulation! >but someone has to at >least once. God help you, because you need it. > >Tom Clayton And may the great LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob... and yes, Noah, bless you too Tom Clayton. Kirk Launius
