Stupid Skeptic Tricks

[Peter Bowditch]

With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
Skeptic Tricks" article at
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/skeptictricks.htm

As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.

And while we are at it -
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/whatisakook.htm

Sound like anyone we know?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

[Jeff]

While we are on the subject of stupid skeptic tricks, I will plug one of my
favariate books: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud., by
Robert Parks. It looks at different different types of pseudoscience and
debunks them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195147103/104-2833499-5128729?v=glance&n=283155

Jeff

[Peter Moran]

"Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
...
> With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
> Skeptic Tricks" article at
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/skeptictricks.htm

Could use a little tweaking when it comes to medical claims. He is on
occasions using philosophical/logical definitions of "proof" and of
"truth". I disagree with the "burden of proof" and "you can't prove a
negative" sections and am unsure about some others..

In medicine the question is not so much "is this proved?", or "is it the
final truth" but "is the evidence is sufficient for this particular
practical purpose?".

Clinical trials, for example, should not be regarded as producing absolute
truth. They depend on probabilities and a presumption of perfect execution
which is rarely achieved. They are a rule of thumb designed to assist
doctors in choosing treatments within a particular framework of other
checks and balances that eventually weed out any ineffective or harmful
remedies that might leak through. Nevertheless, barring gross corruption,
the three independent clinical trials that the FDA usually requires before
endorsing a new treatment will mostly yield information that is "valid" i.e.
close to truth.

Another example is when doctors or patients might choose to try unproven or
even unlikely treatments on minimal evidence when there are no other options
and especially when backs are against the wall with a serious condition.
This can be quite rational behaviour *as an individual choice*. This is
not a defence of those who may sell or disseminate the very same treatments
with exaggerated claims .

>
> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>
> And while we are at it -
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/whatisakook.htm
>
> Sound like anyone we know?

Wow! Sounds like several.

Peter Moran

> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
> Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

[john]

"Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
...
> With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
> Skeptic Tricks" article at
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/skeptictricks.htm
>

But surely this is your main argument Peter:

STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who
reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of
incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three
without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles
Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the
psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the
results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting the charge ever
emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time consuming, and the
number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of
successful, published experiments significant would have been quite high, so
it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective
reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.

[Jan Drew]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
>> Skeptic Tricks" article at
>> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/skeptictricks.htm
>>
>
> But surely this is your main argument Peter:
>
> STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who
> reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of
> incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the
> three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When
> Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in
> favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not
> publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting
> the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time
> consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to
> make the number of successful, published experiments significant would
> have been quite high, so it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results
> could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat
> this accusation.

Peter is clearly a blatant liar.

From his LYING website:

This article originally appeared in the newsgroup alt.paranormal on April 8,
1998, and has been a feature of Jim Lippard's web site for some time.

[without a shred of proof, as is the norm for liar, Peter Bow.].

It was also published in The Skeptic magazine in 2003. It is reproduced here
with the permission of the author.

[Another blatant lie. Liars at Skeptic magazine *accepted* who was the
author..on the say so of another fellow liar].

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/9ec117e83ca0132c

Concerning proof of authorship, I can only say the
publishers of "The Skeptic" were willing to accept me as the author of
this piece when they contacted me for permission to reprint it in the
August 2003 issue of their magazine.


[this proves he was NOT the author].

As the author of "Stupid Skeptic Tricks," I can state unequivocally
that Jan Drew never requested or received permission to reprint or
repost the article from me. I was doing a bit of ego-surfing, and her
dishonesty ****ed me off.

[Note... he says he IS the author. This clearly proves..he too is a liar].

He also wrote:

I never claimed to have authored the piece (though the
fact that it is on my website has occasionally caused confusion on the
matter that I've corrected when I've discovered it).

The *gang* is eager to believe him. Liars believing liars.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/4edef43114e39dd4

Peter: I am indeed an atheist, but I'm not the author of the "Stupid
Skeptic Tricks," I just put it on the web with the permission of the
author. The original author was an AOL user named "DOwens6683" who
posted it to the alt.paranormal newsgroup in 1998.

[once again without a shred of proof..*accepted* by the lying gang].


One of the regulars in the misc.health.alternative newsgroup often quotes
parts of this piece
often.

[without a shred of proof..he does not show this *often*].

In June 2006 she quoted the entire article without attribution, making it
appear that she had written it herself.

[Another blatant lie. FACT: The link has been posted many times all over
the newsgroups, by various posters].

When challenged on this she said that she had the author's permission. The
author was advised and said that no such permission had been granted
(although he immediately granted my request to publish it here).

[What author? Still more blatant lies. Peter posts..TWO different
authors].

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a570a41c45350724

Fri, Jun 9 2006 8:54 pm

I can only say the
publishers of "The Skeptic" were willing to accept me as the author of
this piece when they contacted me for permission to reprint it in the
August 2003 issue of their magazine.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a570a41c45350724

Fri, Jun 9 2006 11:26 pm

You have my permission to republish the article, provided that you
republish it in its entirety without alteration and give me proper
credit for authorship.

[See above: The original author was an AOL user named "DOwens6683" who
posted it to the alt.paranormal newsgroup in 1998.]

The plagiariser is very fond of calling people liars for disagreeing with
her.

[another repeated lie. I have proven otherwise].

And while we are at it -
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/whatisakook.htm


[This had disappeared from the web, but I think it needs a permanent home.]


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?page=21&messageid=209958&showdate=6/20/06&mpage=1

[Rich]

"Jan Drew" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
>>> Skeptic Tricks" article at
>>> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/skeptictricks.htm
>>>
>>
>> But surely this is your main argument Peter:
>>
>> STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who
>> reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of
>> incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the
>> three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When
>> Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in
>> favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not
>> publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts
>> supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were
>> extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished
>> experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published
>> experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely
>> unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet
>> skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.
>
> Peter is clearly a blatant liar.

No, YOU are the blatant liar, and that is PROVEN.



>
> From his LYING website:

It's not a "lying website," and you have never proven a single lie in it.



>
> This article originally appeared in the newsgroup alt.paranormal on April
> 8, 1998, and has been a feature of Jim Lippard's web site for some time.
>
> [without a shred of proof, as is the norm for liar, Peter Bow.].

What's to prove? That it's been on Lippard's site for some time? It has.



>
> It was also published in The Skeptic magazine in 2003. It is reproduced
> here with the permission of the author.
>
> [Another blatant lie. Liars at Skeptic magazine *accepted* who was the
> author..on the say so of another fellow liar].
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/9ec117e83ca0132c
>
> Concerning proof of authorship, I can only say the
> publishers of "The Skeptic" were willing to accept me as the author of
> this piece when they contacted me for permission to reprint it in the
> August 2003 issue of their magazine.
>
>
> [this proves he was NOT the author].

It proves no such thing. Publications like 'Skeptic' must be very careful
not to commit plagiarism themselves, so I'm sure that they carefully
researched the authorship of the article. Besides, the fact that nobody
other than D. Owens has ever claimed to own the piece. If he had not written
it, the true author would surely have protested loud and long. The fact that
nobody did is very strong evidence of Owens' claim to it.



>
> As the author of "Stupid Skeptic Tricks," I can state unequivocally
> that Jan Drew never requested or received permission to reprint or
> repost the article from me. I was doing a bit of ego-surfing, and her
> dishonesty ****ed me off.
>
> [Note... he says he IS the author. This clearly proves..he too is a
> liar].


Not at all. He IS the author.


>
> He also wrote:
>
> I never claimed to have authored the piece (though the
> fact that it is on my website has occasionally caused confusion on the
> matter that I've corrected when I've discovered it).
>
> The *gang* is eager to believe him. Liars believing liars.

The author never said this. Jim Lippard said it.




>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/4edef43114e39dd4
>
> Peter: I am indeed an atheist, but I'm not the author of the "Stupid
> Skeptic Tricks," I just put it on the web with the permission of the
> author. The original author was an AOL user named "DOwens6683" who
> posted it to the alt.paranormal newsgroup in 1998.
>
> [once again without a shred of proof..*accepted* by the lying gang].

Perhaps you can tell us what author gave you permission to post "Stupid
Skeptic Tricks" without attribution? Of course you can't, because you LIED!



>
>
> One of the regulars in the misc.health.alternative newsgroup often quotes
> parts of this piece
> often.
>
> [without a shred of proof..he does not show this *often*].
>
> In June 2006 she quoted the entire article without attribution, making it
> appear that she had written it herself.
>
> [Another blatant lie. FACT: The link has been posted many times all over
> the newsgroups, by various posters].

But YOU are the one who plagiarized it without attribution, and then lied
about permission to do so.



>
> When challenged on this she said that she had the author's permission. The
> author was advised and said that no such permission had been granted
> (although he immediately granted my request to publish it here).
>
> [What author? Still more blatant lies. Peter posts..TWO different
> authors].
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a570a41c45350724

Er, D. Owens and who else? Where do you get two different authors? Are you
lying again, Jan?



>
> Fri, Jun 9 2006 8:54 pm
>
> I can only say the
> publishers of "The Skeptic" were willing to accept me as the author of
> this piece when they contacted me for permission to reprint it in the
> August 2003 issue of their magazine.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a570a41c45350724
>
> Fri, Jun 9 2006 11:26 pm
>
> You have my permission to republish the article, provided that you
> republish it in its entirety without alteration and give me proper
> credit for authorship.
>
> [See above: The original author was an AOL user named "DOwens6683" who
> posted it to the alt.paranormal newsgroup in 1998.]

Yes, D. Owens was indeed the author. That's what we've been trying to tell
YOU.



>
> The plagiariser is very fond of calling people liars for disagreeing with
> her.
>
> [another repeated lie. I have proven otherwise].


You've proven no such thing.



>
> And while we are at it -
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/whatisakook.htm
>
>
> [This had disappeared from the web, but I think it needs a permanent
> home.]
>
>
> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?page=21&messageid=209958&showdate=6/20/06&mpage=1


???
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

[Peter Moran]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
>> Skeptic Tricks" article at
>> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/skeptictricks.htm
>>
>
> But surely this is your main argument Peter:
>
> STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who
> reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of
> incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the
> three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When
> Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in
> favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not
> publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting
> the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time
> consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to
> make the number of successful, published experiments significant would
> have been quite high, so it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results
> could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat
> this accusation.
>
Presumably you are referring to the meta analysis of all the Ganzfeld
studies published. There would almost certainly be a great deal of
publication bias in such reporting. There was a high rate of negative
studies in even the published studies. PSI enthusiasts will almost
certainly be neglecting to publish a lot of negative results, finding
excuses why on that particular day their psychic could not perform.

There is more information about the meta-analysis of Ganzfeld experiments
here.

http://skepdic.com/metaanalysis.html

This is an area where I think the unusual claim does need a more compelling
form of evidence than finding (usually weak) statistical effects in
experiments where an "effect" can only be sought by repeating a test over
and over and then looking for statistical significance.. Experience with
controlled clinical trials shows how such trials are very prone to throw up
positive results through chance and errors in trial procedure, and
especially how the results always tend to reflect the biases of those
designing, performing and analysing them.

They are not as reliable a tool as was once thought.

Peter Moran

[D. C. Sessions]

Peter Bowditch wrote:

> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.

You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are you?

[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

[Peter Bowditch]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote:

>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
>> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
>> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
>> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
>> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
>> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>
>You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are you?

Of course not. Jan has been continually quoting the piece as published
on Jim Lippard's site, but by her own rules Jim can't be trusted
because he admits to being an atheist. I'm just raising the bar.

>
>[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."

That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
each other.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

[Jan Drew]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "john" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> With the permission of the author, I have published D. Owens' "Stupid
>>>> Skeptic Tricks" article at
>>>> http://www.ratbags.com/Lies
>>>>
>>> But surely this is your main argument Peter:
>>>
>>> STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who
>>> reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of
>>> incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the
>>> three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When
>>> Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in
>>> favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not
>>> publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts
>>> supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were
>>> extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished
>>> experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published
>>> experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely
>>> unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting.
>>> Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.
>>
>> Peter is clearly a blatant liar.
>>
>> From his LYING website:
>
> Excellent example.

Yes, I have shown the lies. Look them up.
>
> --
> begin signature.exe
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A It is not.

> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

The gang and their lies.

[Jan Drew]

"Peter Bowditch" told more lies, as usual.
> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>
>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>
>>> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
>>> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
>>> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
>>> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
>>> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>>
>>You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are you?
>
> Of course not. Jan has been continually quoting the piece as published
> on Jim Lippard's site, but by her own rules Jim can't be trusted
> because he admits to being an atheist. I'm just raising the bar.
>
>>
>>[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>
> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
> each other.

Like who might think that?

You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.


> --
> Peter Bowditch
<snip trash + spam>

[Peter Bowditch]

"Jan Drew" > wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" told more lies, as usual.
>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>
>>>> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
>>>> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
>>>> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
>>>> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
>>>> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>>>
>>>You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are you?
>>
>> Of course not. Jan has been continually quoting the piece as published
>> on Jim Lippard's site, but by her own rules Jim can't be trusted
>> because he admits to being an atheist. I'm just raising the bar.
>>
>>>
>>>[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>>
>> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
>> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
>> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
>> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
>> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
>> each other.
>
>Like who might think that?
>
>You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.

Did you see the word "might", Jan?

You really should look into that remedial reading class. In fact,
should go further than just looking and actually go in and have a
lesson or two.

>
>
>> --
>> Peter Bowditch
> <snip trash + spam>

Spam? Spam? Is the person who regularly spams for commercial sites
like Altcorp suggesting that I am a spammer?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

[D. C. Sessions]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>> Peter Bowditch wrote:

>> [1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>
> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
> each other.

You have a point, since neither mathematics nor getting along in peace
seem to have anything to do with the practical [1] purpose of MHA.

[1] as distinct from stated.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

[Jan Drew]

"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" told more lies, as usual.
>>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
>>>>> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
>>>>> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
>>>>> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
>>>>> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>>>>
>>>>You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are you?
>>>
>>> Of course not. Jan has been continually quoting the piece as published
>>> on Jim Lippard's site, but by her own rules Jim can't be trusted
>>> because he admits to being an atheist. I'm just raising the bar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>>>
>>> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
>>> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
>>> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
>>> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
>>> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
>>> each other.
>>
>>Like who might think that?
>>
>>You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.
>
> Did you see the word "might", Jan?

LOL! Yes. Do you see it in my reply?

<snip usual>

Ready to answer??

You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.



>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Bowditch
>> <snip trash + spam>
>
> Spam? Spam?

YES. Yes.



Is the person who regularly spams for commercial sites
> like Altcorp suggesting that I am a spammer?

That is another lie. I post the RESEARCH there.


> --
> Peter Bowditch

[Jan Drew]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
>>> [1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>>
>> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
>> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
>> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
>> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
>> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
>> each other.
>
> You have a point, since neither mathematics nor getting along in peace
> seem to have anything to do with the practical [1] purpose of MHA.

His only point is to deceive.

<snip crap>

[Peter Bowditch]

"Jan Drew" > wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
>> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Bowditch" told more lies, as usual.
>>>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
>>>>>> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
>>>>>> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she is
>>>>>> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then be
>>>>>> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are you?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. Jan has been continually quoting the piece as published
>>>> on Jim Lippard's site, but by her own rules Jim can't be trusted
>>>> because he admits to being an atheist. I'm just raising the bar.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>>>>
>>>> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
>>>> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
>>>> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
>>>> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
>>>> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
>>>> each other.
>>>
>>>Like who might think that?
>>>
>>>You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.
>>
>> Did you see the word "might", Jan?
>
>LOL! Yes. Do you see it in my reply?
>
><snip usual>
>
>Ready to answer??
>
>You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.

OK, Jan, I want you to take this very slowly.

I said nothing which requires proof. I said that some people "MIGHT"
think something. There is no way that proof of such a speculation can
be provided, so I cant offer it. That's the way that speculation
works.

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Bowditch
>>> <snip trash + spam>
>>
>> Spam? Spam?
>
>YES. Yes.

Please describe the "spam" in words which we can all understand.

>
>
>
> Is the person who regularly spams for commercial sites
>> like Altcorp suggesting that I am a spammer?
>
>That is another lie. I post the RESEARCH there.

You link to a site which sells testing and treatments. It sells stuff.
How does that differ from what seems to be your definition of "spam"?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

[Jan Drew]

"Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
...
> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
>>> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Peter Bowditch" told more lies, as usual.
>>>>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As this now appears on my web site and as Jan Drew has continually
>>>>>>> said that my site contains nothing but lies, she will no longer be
>>>>>>> able to quote this article (with or without attribution) unless she
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> prepared to admit that something on my site is true. She will then
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> asked (again) to specifically point out what is not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're not seriously expecting rational consistency [1] on MHA, are
>>>>>>you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not. Jan has been continually quoting the piece as published
>>>>> on Jim Lippard's site, but by her own rules Jim can't be trusted
>>>>> because he admits to being an atheist. I'm just raising the bar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[1] Note that I didn't write "integrity."
>>>>>
>>>>> That would require consistency. In any case, some around here might
>>>>> not be familiar with the word and might thing it has something to do
>>>>> with "integral" and therefore be related to science via mathematics,
>>>>> or some might even think it is related to "integration", which
>>>>> conjures up images of different sorts of people getting along with
>>>>> each other.
>>>>
>>>>Like who might think that?
>>>>
>>>>You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.
>>>
>>> Did you see the word "might", Jan?
>>
>>LOL! Yes. Do you see it in my reply?
>>
>><snip usual>
>>
>>Ready to answer??
>>
>>You haven't a shred of proof. As usual.
>
> OK, Jan, I want you to take this very slowly.
>
> I said nothing which requires proof. I said that some people "MIGHT"
> think something. There is no way that proof of such a speculation can
> be provided, so I cant offer it. That's the way that speculation
> works.

No. You said ...*some around here*.

Either put up or shut up.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter Bowditch
>>>> <snip trash + spam>
>>>
>>> Spam? Spam?
>>
>>YES. Yes.
>
> Please describe the "spam" in words which we can all understand.

You all have no understanding.

I have posted previously about your spam.

Furthermore....your shill posts your spam, and is a hypocrite.


>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the person who regularly spams for commercial sites
>>> like Altcorp suggesting that I am a spammer?
>>
>>That is another lie. I post the RESEARCH there.
>
> You link to a site which sells testing and treatments.

I post his RESEARCH. Fool.

[ ]


>
> --
> Peter Bowditch

[ ]