Re chardonnay9 the thread crasher

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Good science *LEADS TO* natural methods that actually cure the
underlying cause instead of temporarily relieving symptoms without
looking for a cause at all.

No, "good science" refers to methodological and analytical
rigor. That you use whether or not you agree with the
results as the basis for deciding whether or not the science
was "good" turns you into a patsy for all sorts of
ridiculous crap.

If you read it carefully and slower so it sinks in you will notice I was
not defining science. Brain fart?

No, lots of education. Including research methodology and a
heck of a lot of statistics.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

diddy wrote:
"Phyrie" spoke these words of wisdom in
:

"chardonnay9" wrote in message
m...

It really scares all of you that so many people think like me doesn't it?
Really? Where are they, Chard? Why aren't the multitudes jumping in to
defend you and your ideas? If there are so many, let them post here and
now. Let's hear from the hordes of "Chard-thinkers". Today, right this
minute.
Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm glad you have nothing to do Phyrie. I killfiled her long ago. But I
daresay this is going to be a short thread.


"I kept the kitten over night in a crate within a crate
and yet my dog (yes, Angelic Danny, as well as Taya
and Toby tore that kittne to threads from between the
crate bars. (apparently he stuck his paws through the
crate to bat at the dogs. I was out doing yard work
and rushed in to find the little kittens pieces and
parts being torn through by ALL the dogs."

Yeah I'm real impressed with diddy diddler!

chardonnay9 wrote:
Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Good science? Where would that be? Good science leads to natural
methods that actually cure the underlying cause instead of
temporarily relieving symptoms without looking for a cause at all.

"Good science" refers to research methodology.

Good science *LEADS TO* natural methods that actually cure the
underlying cause instead of temporarily relieving symptoms without
looking for a cause at all.

Doesn't make a difference. Once you determine
that it "*leads to"* something specific, then
your determination right there supercedes
scientific methodology (and short circuits
logic for extra fun)

And I'm not basing this on any of your
posting history....just on the above comment,
and the posts that directly led up to it.

If you read it carefully and slower so it sinks in you will notice I was
not defining science. Brain fart?

Actually, what you wrote above defines
Science by what its conclusion is....which is
pretty bad.

Science is defined by approach, process and
methodology....not by whether it brings the
conclusion you want.

Given the nature and inherent meaning of what
you just wrote above, you might just want to
back off on the "you're so stupid" inferences.

Scientific methodolgy or research is based on objective studies using
controls.

You give us opinion and nothing more, then prescribe as though a doctor.

Oh, and you LIE.

Why is it you changed what I wrote and attributed to me?

You are sick.

Take yourself and your sock puppets over to Jerry's ward.

chardonnay9 wrote:
FurPaw wrote:

It's a whole 'nuther thing to eschew good science in the name of using
"natural methods."

Good science? Where would that be? Good science leads to natural methods
that actually cure the underlying cause instead of temporarily relieving
symptoms without looking for a cause at all.

See Melinda, Tara, and Sharon Too's responses re science. I
don't think you understand the scientific method.

It's as if you believe that "natural" equates to
"non-toxic."

Putting words in my mouth again. I've never said anything like that.
Funny how you have to make things up to respond against me. Can't find
fault in the truth huh?

So you don't believe that "natural" equates to "non-toxic"?

(Have an Amanita virosa, m'dear?) As if you believe that
"traditional medicine" is by definition superior to modern medicine.

Many people do believe that.

Many people believe in a lot of things that aren't so.

I'm one of them. Not in every case and in
every situation but most times yes it's so.

That explains a lot ...

Your "studies" of "natural methods" and "traditional medicine" don't
go deep enough for you to be able to distinguish between effective
practices vs. those that are based solely on superstition and
tradition and are at best ineffective, at worst themselves harmful.

You have nothing to base that on. I think you don't know enough about it
to make such a call. I've put years of skeptical research into it all
before deciding to believe it.

I base the judgment on having read all too many of your posts to
this group.

I guess you'd consider something like
this to be more effective?

http://tinyurl.com/5m6ppt

Sorry, I don't click on tinyurls in newsgroups. Try the preview
version, and I might look at it.

If you stopped trying to play vet, stopped "prescribing" to people who
post here,

If you stopped trying to twist what I say into situations that never
happened.... like when someone asked for opinions and I gave a website
to look at, all of a sudden I'm killing dogs! How silly!

You've "diagnosed" and "prescribed" many times. I call that
practicing veterinary medicine without a license.

stopped preaching your one-note sermon, stopped acting like a
True Believer, stopped discounting any evidence that contradicts your
opinion,

Has there been any? Not that I've seen. What planet are you on?

Perhaps you don't consider anything to be evidence that
contradicts your opinion.

and started getting a real education (as opposed to
generalizing from all the anecdotes you read on "alternative medicine"
web sites) you might get a better reception.

From someone that has no clue what education I have and obviously can't
tell by my posts....

Correct, I have no clue what education you have, and what I might
deduce from your posts smacks of a diploma mill.

I mean, is this you?

I killfiled him years ago and neither do I read his rants when
they're quoted by someone else.

FurPaw

--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

Tara Green wrote:


Actually, what you wrote above defines Science by what its conclusion
is....which is pretty bad.


There was no attempt on my part to define science.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:


Actually, what you wrote above defines Science by what its conclusion
is....which is pretty bad.


There was no attempt on my part to define science.

When you say what Science always *LEADS* to,
and that statement is the *opposite* of what
science actually is, then yes, logic dictates
that you ARE in fact defining it by its outcome.

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:


Actually, what you wrote above defines Science by what its conclusion
is....which is pretty bad.


There was no attempt on my part to define science.

When you say what Science always *LEADS* to, and that statement is the
*opposite* of what science actually is, then yes, logic dictates that
you ARE in fact defining it by its outcome.

You are playing with words again. What you quoted was not what I said.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:


Actually, what you wrote above defines Science by what its
conclusion is....which is pretty bad.


There was no attempt on my part to define science.

When you say what Science always *LEADS* to, and that statement is the
*opposite* of what science actually is, then yes, logic dictates that
you ARE in fact defining it by its outcome.

You are playing with words again. What you quoted was not what I said.

Here is what you said:

"Good science *LEADS TO* natural methods that
actually cure the underlying cause instead of
temporarily relieving symptoms without
looking for a cause at all. "

So, when I said

"When you say what Science always *LEADS* to,
and that statement is the *opposite* of what
science actually is, then yes, logic dictates
that you ARE in fact defining it by its outcome."

How exactly am I changing your quote or
playing with words? I'm taking exactly what
you said, and applying logic to it.

And what I quoted was *exactly* what you
said. That's just paranoid.

"chardonnay9" wrote in message
m...

Giving a link to a Yahoo group about cancer is dangerous?

Telling someone they should give their dog oleander is dangerous.

They flame me and some how I did something wrong?

You aren't being flamed. That word does not mean what you think it
means. You *are* being criticized for giving dangerous, stupid advice,
though.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)