Jonathan wrote:
<<I find it distasteful that well-informed comments are dismissed as
"speculation" -- at a certain point "speculation" becomes hypothesis,
though not all of us have opportunity to follow through with our
hypotheses -- and I also find it irritating, patronizing, and
wrongheaded for a list member (Nancy) to be asked whether or not she had
read all the citations for a particular link she provided.
It would be fine for another list member simply to point out the alleged
discrepancies between the citations and the article if the critic has
time to do so, but perhaps the comments might better be directed to the
authors of the article rather than the person posting the link.
Moreover, if we are going to be thorough, we would have to follow
thorough with a complete explanation of the variances between the
article and the citations, now wouldn't we? I am quite eager to see a
full essay on this as soon as possible. With references. And with
all references within those references explicated, please.
Perhaps the whole problem here is simply due to the difficulty of
indicating tone through e-mail messages, but several messages here
recently strke me as very condescending and irritating indeed, though
many other postings have been quite useful and informative. >>
** ::::Sigh:::::: Let's go back tothe original discussion. Nancy
cited mycoplasma as being responsible for a host of chronic
illnesses. I posted information supporting that it was not
just mycopalsma responsible for ALL CFS.
Next, Nancy posted an article with citations. I was familiar
with the article and had previously read a number of the citations, most
of which do not support what the article was stating. This is a favorite
ploy of authors who have a point to make but have little evidence to support
that point. I asked Nancy if she had read the citations.
End of story.
As far as this statement you make:
"I concede that the ad-hominem comment was not appropriate and regret it,
but the term properly describes the tone I detect in several recent
postings"
** Show me where. Anything I wrote addressed the ideas, not the
person writing them. If you go back and look, YOU were the one to
make this personal, not Nancy or I.
<<Moreover, if we are going to be thorough, we would have to follow
thorough with a complete explanation of the variances between the
article and the citations, now wouldn't we? I am quite eager to see a
full essay on this as soon as possible. With references. And with
all references within those references explicated, please>>
** This has come to a point of being time-consuming and non-productive.
All you have to do is read the references to find the variations.
If you were interested in the issue more than you are interested in
hassling me,
you would do this.
Catherine
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
