Re: Converting Magnesium Sulphate to Magnesium Chloride?


"Rob" <robbie.buckleyaoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:48ef4b8c$0$31804$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bull***.
Proof?
Must all be true, cos it says so on the internet? Idiot.

Have you _ever_ cracked a chemistry or biology textbook? It really doesn't
hurt, y'know.

The fact that you reply with mainly one word answers, and ask me to do even
more work for you, despite being given ample references and names that you
could look up if you were really interested to make an objective criticism
of these matters, suggests two possibilities to me.

One is that you are a learned expert on these matters, widely read on the
work of all of the people referenced, and have carefully considered their
theories and through a process of scientific and intellectual rigor have
decided to disagree. However you lack the time to pose any reasoned
response, being so busy pushing back the frontiers of learning, and so
resort to almost mono-syllabic negative responses. However I feel this is
the less probable case.

More likely is it that you know nothing at all about the matters linked to,
seeing you had to resort to Google to find anything at all on the subjects,
and then couldn't find anything, because of my misspelling of one name, and
now having been given the links, resort to calls of "bull***" and
"quackery", without any real consideration of the issues and claims
involved. You had obviously never heard of the work of Enderlein, or
Bechamps, and probably still have no idea about the work of Virginia
Livingstone or Royal Raymond Rife or Gaston Naessens (which a careful
following of the subject of pleomorphism would have inevitably have led you
to), because one simply could not take in the enormous scope of their work
in the time taken for your response, much less formulate cogent argument in
rebuttal. You perhaps fall into the mould of those prone to wildly chanting
slogans while dancing around piles of burning books in times gone by.
Scientific and medical orthodoxy has over the course of the growth of
knowledge been wrong far more often than it has been right.

You are chanting "bull***" and "quackery" purely on the base of yesterdays
orthodoxy. I do not claim that every aspect of the work of those I
referenced is absolutely correct in all details, but along with some still
violent opposition, there is a growing acceptance of many of the things
they postulated.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was the first to identify this
process, and wrote that :-
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

The subjects I referenced for you are currently in between the second and
third stage!

Do you see where your understanding of these matters is at on the
Schopenhauer scale?


In response to your concluding and only sensible question. Yes.

Regards,
Pissant from OZ, (Orthodox Iconoclast)
Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", according to several
of the learned colleagues here. Perhaps they are of the type that insisted
that the earth was flat, and that Copernicus was a heretic in the middle
ages. So sure in their little bit of knowledge, their minds are made up, and
they refuse to be confused with facts!)



.