Re: Detecting operatives for special interests in the NG
- From: monty1945@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Jul 2006 02:03:35 -0700
Yes Phil, it does seem that this newsgroup is filled with industry
shills and spokespeople for various interests. My posts have been
attacked in ludicrous ways in the past, more than once for obvious
"typo" errors in very long posts. I've talked about the techniques
they use. For example, I recommened books to people, and I even say
things like, "overall, it is fairly good," but then the shills attack
me, finding something in the book that may indeed be incorrect, and
which I don't endorse (such as the "essential fatty acid" claim, which
one finds in just about every book on nutrition, despite it being
refuted directly in 1948). They can't be so stupid as to think that
any book about nutrition will be perfect in every way, yet the hope
that they can cast doubt - the last hope of the desperate shill, I
suppose.
It is the "cost of doing business" here. But a few months ago I
started my own web site and newsgroup, which contains my essays and
also message boards. I can delete any personal attacks, obscentities,
absurd remarks, etc. My site is meant to focus on the scientific
evidence, methodology, and interpretation.
It is at: http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-
.
- References:
- Detecting operatives for special interests in the NG
- From: Phil Scott
- Detecting operatives for special interests in the NG
- Prev by Date: Re: concerns about soy - interesting article
- Next by Date: Weird Nursing Tales
- Previous by thread: Detecting operatives for special interests in the NG
- Next by thread: Re: Detecting operatives for special interests in the NG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
