Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- From: "TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Jan 2007 10:03:04 -0800
On Jan 24, 10:50 am, capm...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Smile, when asked for proof to support bald assertions we get theabove,
but not for the first time, par for the course. We are bing asked oneat it?
presumes to provide the support asked ofhim?"So you can immediately label it as cherry picking without even glancing
You show me I'm wrong. I know I'm right."
That is what we are asking you to provide support for, beyond your
feeling you are "right". He who advances a notion is bound to provide
the support for it. Others are not bound to do anything but may choose
to respond when support is provided.
OK, right off the bat, we know that *you* are here not to debate
anything logically, but simply to try to cast aspersions on anything
that is contrary to your food industry cult agenda. Your asking me to
provide proof is just a ruse for you to accuse me of cherry picking
when I do provide proof.
So I see no reason to provide proof to *you* just for your predictable
accusations of cherry picking.
I provide information to everyone to read and to prompt discussion. If
you disagree with the info, fine, if you agree, even better. But in the
end, I don't give a rats ass what *you* think. So take your food
industry cult troll garbage and go to aitch eeee double hockey sticks.
TC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- From: capmack
- Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- References:
- Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- From: TC
- Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- From: capmack
- Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- Prev by Date: Re: The lipid hypothesis
- Next by Date: Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- Previous by thread: Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- Next by thread: Re: Allopathic arrogance from 1864 to 2007
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|