> Great Post Mike. Which leads me to a question. I belong to > several other lists like this, and ALL of them discourage any > copying or forwarding of list material. Does this list also?
I haven't given it much thought, and I don't really have much of a problem with it in principle. Anything anybody says here is accessible to anyone who's subscribed, and anybody can subscribe at any time. > I am DYING to send this post to a friend of mine, whose favorite > (ack gagg) website is Quackwatch. . . . . . <Laugh!> In this *specific* case, I wonder if we really need to wave the cape in front of the bull? Use your good judgement as to the character of your friend. <smile> > Sparrow > > Peter wrote: > > > the colloidal silver quacks ... quacks in general ... quack cancer > > cures ... > > Chuck responded: > > > Oh no, > > We're going to usenet mode folks! > > The list is gonna be: > > Quack,Quack! > > No it's not! > > Quack, Quack! > > No it's not! > > ad nauseum........... > > > > Please go away!!!!!!! > > Calm down, Chuck! We're not and it won't... <GRIN> > > Posting to the silver list is entirely at the sufferance of the > person who pays the bill and makes the decisions. This is not a > public forum, so you can check your right to free speech at the > door!!! <EVIL GRIN> > > My subjective judgement tempered by my take on the desires of the > rest of the active participants (and vocal lurkers) determines what > I will and won't permit. I have explained the rules I try to apply > many times in the past, and every recent subscriber has received a > copy of them when they joined, which I just reposted a little bit > ago. > > Violations will be dealt with in a timely way, though not usually > *instantly*. There is no appeal. > > You're just getting chance to watch me deal with a possible problem, > something which has been blessedly rare lately. > > Repeated references to "quacks" reveals an attitude that *might* > keep Peter from being able to contribute anything positive to the > list. It'll be up to him to decide how he wants to proceed, and up > to me to decide if it's going to work out. > > I find it so ironic that most of what he is saying is entirely > consistent with what we've already figured out and agree on! > > See what I mean: > > Peter wrote: > > > I have only been on the list two weeks but my cynical answer would > > be: > > ... Absolutely correct, except for the implied broad brush and > argumentative tone... > > > - the colloidal silver quacks have suddenly discovered that the > > correct META tags at the top of their web pages will put them high > > up in the search engines, and > > That's the technique! It's also why the Jacobs' site and Quackwatch > come up so high on those search engines, too!! > > > - quacks in general have discovered there is a gold mine (silver > > mine :-) ) to be had in selling tap water in bottles at $US7 per > > oz to the worried-well market. > > Yup! One of the things we warn people about is the quality control > problems of store-bought and mail-order CS. There seem to be a few > pretty reliable brands, but there are so many that it is impossible > to know anything at all about most of them. > > This is one of the main reasons many folks here make their own. Once > they figure out how and get some testing done, they can at least > know what they've got with some degree of confidence. > > > I see the same pattern in the quack cancer cures market. > > Well, I guess it all boils down to your definition of the word > "Quack", doesn't it now? If anybody who believes in any alternative > treatment for anything is automatically a rube or a quack, then I > guess there's not much point in your being here, is there? Because > there isn't much we've got in common and it riles people up. > > If you want to call the unprincipled shysters and con-men quacks, > then I guess I wouldn't quibble, since they most assuredly are out > there. Except that you're not doing a very good job of > distinguishing "us'n" from "them." > > There are sincere people of at least serviceable competence here who > are reporting things that contradict what the mainstream would have > us believe. I'm at least going to consider what they have to say. > > Many of us have seen unmistakeable results with our own eyes. I'm > not going to ask these folks to deny their own senses and judgement. > > Those of us here who understand science at least a little bit are > always looking out for the rest, trying to keep them from believing > every bit of schlock being put out -- by *both* sides. Don't ask us > to stop asking sharp questions, just because it leads into areas for > which you don't have all the answers. > > Trying to protect the vulnerable and the gullible is actually an > important function of what we do on this list. It's just that not > *all* the anecdotal reports are hype, lies, or self-deception. Not > *all* alternative options are quackery. And not *all* of what > mainstream medicine provides is safe, effective, or the *only* > viable option. > > It is where there is an *exception* to the rule that we need to look > the closest. That's exactly what we're doing here. > > Want to help, Peter? > > Mike D. > list owner -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
