Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch

From: Peter Bowditch (myfirstname_at_ratbags.com)
Date: 02/11/05 

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:09:38 GMT

Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:

>Thanks Anth ...
> "Anth" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.pakin.org/complaint?firstname=Quackwatch&pgraphs=1&gender=c
>
>My complaint about Quackwatch
>Quackwatch's demands have served as a powerful weapon with which horny
>pipsqueaks can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and
>rational debate out the window, but that's not the point of this
>letter. The point is that the limitation and final abolition of
>hooliganism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
>There are a number of reasons Quackwatch isn't telling us as to why it
>wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience
>-- basis. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on
>the principle that it has a long, demagogism-infested history of
>attempts to sanctify its depravity. Now, that's a strong conclusion to
>draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me
>corroborate it by saying that we must remove our chains and move
>towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the
>chains symbolize Quackwatch's crude commentaries, and the light
>represents the goal of getting all of us to address the continued
>social injustice shown by voluble knee-biters.) With this letter, I
>hope I have made my views clear: We have already fallen into
>Quackwatch's trap.
>

Doncha just love it when fools reproduce the words written by a joke
generator as if they mean something?

Here is what that page said about Quackwatch when I checked a few
minutes ago:

It will undeniably surprise some people to hear me say this, but all
of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude
to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by
Quackwatch and its encomiasts to introduce changes without testing
them first. For starters, Quackwatch likes ultimata that twist the
truth. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask
me, I'd say that its imprecations do not come without a price. The
sooner it comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
You don't need to look far to see that this has been documented
repeatedly, but I guess nobody ever explained that to Quackwatch's
brethren. No one can deny that it would be a work of supererogation to
hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to
sane values and certainties at a time when every week there transpires
news of negligent Luddites following Quackwatch's orders to besmirch
the memory of some genuine historic figures, yet its reason is not
true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only shiftless answers,
clumsy resolutions to conflicts. Unfortunately, I can already see the
response to this letter. Someone, possibly Quackwatch itself or one of
its subordinates, will write a heartless piece about how spiteful I
am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed
to be written.

Here's another:

My complaint about Ilena Rosenthal

The furor over Pyrrhonism has been an acutely frustrating cultural
phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and
fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and
abominable manner that will take away our sense of community and leave
us morally adrift before you know it. What's important to note,
however, is that Ilena Rosenthal's slurs share many of the same
characteristics. What follows is a call to action for those of us who
care -- a large enough number to draw a picture of what we conceive of
under the word "individualistic". When I state that facts and their
accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever she
dreams up, I'm merely trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity
to shatter the illusion that the ideas of "freedom" and "hooliganism"
are Siamese twins.

Yes, Virginia, if she wants to complain, she should have an argument.
She shouldn't just throw out the word "chromatographic", for example,
and expect us to be scared. What is Ilena's current objective? As
usual, there are multiple objectives:

to create anomie,
to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, and
to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures.
If I recall correctly, if Ilena opened her eyes, she'd realize that
her commentaries, when taken as a whole, are unprofessional. We must
learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically
correct thing to do, but because every time Ilena utters or writes a
statement that supports blackguardism -- even indirectly -- it sends a
message that things have never been better. I really maintain we
mustn't let her make such statements, partly because I must defend my
honor, but primarily because she may advertise "magical" diets and
bogus weight-loss pills right after she reads this letter. Let her.
One day, I will provide a trenchant analysis of Ilena's philippics. In
spite of the fact that Ilena's vituperations either go uncontested or
are openly supported by hideous, abusive firebrands, she has been
deluding people into believing that masochism is the key to world
peace. Don't let her delude you, too. Ilena says that her ultimata can
give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. But then she turns
around and says that she is a paragon of morality and wisdom. You
know, you can't have it both ways, Ilena.

She represents the most recent incarnation of the unique 20th-century
phenomenon known as "intransigent favoritism". So what's the
connection between that and her beliefs (as I would certainly not call
them logically reasoned arguments)? The connection is that in a recent
essay, Ilena stated that the health effects of secondhand smoke are
negligible. Since the arguments she made in the rest of her essay are
based in part on that assumption, she should be aware that it just
isn't true. Not only that, but her conclusions are designed to pursue
a twofold credo of Marxism and deconstructionism. And they're working;
they're having the desired effect. There is no defense against
ridicule. I mean, think about it. The end. 

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