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 am DYING to send this post to a friend of mine, whose favorite (ack gagg) website is Quackwatch. . . . . . 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 [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- 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]> -- 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]>
