🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:51:54 GMT, "Stef Duncan"
<robandstef2000@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Mark Addinall" <addinall@myownemail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d45c81b.1283410702@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:08:12 GMT, "Petecito" <petecito@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Great !  Another 10 years tied up in throwing cash at 'we may have
>stumbled
>> >on the possible causes of MS - more testing is required to validate these
>> >assumptions'
>>
>> What's the alternative?  Sit around and whine?  Try leeches?
>> "The Power of Positive Thinking"?  Amway?
>>
>> >
>> >I'll echo the lambasted Rob
>>
>> Pleas don't, that way I'd have to write 'idiot' next to your
>> name as well.
>
>The tactics of the shrill crowd.  

The tactics of a Rob caught with his pants around
his ankles.  You may get some perverse kick out
of annoying people who are crook, I don't

The shrill crowd.  That one hasn't come over the pond yet.
I'll add to the list shall I?
Below is a collection of such buzzwords. They describe or 
relate to various negative human qualities, such as stupidity 
or rudeness. 

"Chattering classes", lobby, mob, brigade, moan, froth, babble, 
bleat, spout, peddle, whine, shout, scream, demand 
(forceful equivalent of 'would like'), hysteria, knee-jerk, 
emotional, irrational, self-righteous, "moral high ground", 
"holier than thou", do-gooder, "bunny hugger", "fluffy bunny
 land", "head in the clouds", "cuckoo land", "Ivory Towers", "
divorced from reality", "unable to face reality", fickle, 
soppy, misguided, un-American, "means well...", fad, trendy, 
cool, fashionable, feel-good, clueless, propaganda, 
misinformation, myth, "the big lie", chant, mantra, naive, 
gullible, prejudice, troll, flamer, kook, delusional, 
unreasonable, unthinking, "Big Brother", thought police, 
1984, Orwellian, nannyism, nazi, fascist, jackboot, 
McCarthyism, "political correctness", agenda, "vested 
interest", "control freak", apologists, vindictive, "so-called", 
hype, sheep, sheeple, drones, "at whatever cost", "can't tell f
act from fiction" "special rights", "double speak", suit, ban, "
arm chair" (doesn't fully understand subject, but is 
passionately vocal), intolerant, "soft touch", oppressive, 
"the conservative/liberal media", anti, "mass public", "vocal
minority", mentality, zealot, hypocrites, "one rule for them", 
rights (when demanded inappropriately), extremists, 
radicals. 



>The insulting and derisive behavior of
>those who have an agenda at work who want no true competition on the arena
>of logical refutation.  

You are making the "I know the answer" claims.  Then
write them up.  Publish.  Go to one of your hated drug
companies and show them that only you know the truth
and make yourself a zillion dollars on the way to happiness and light.
Competition?  Love it.  Y'all in the USA and Canada are
probably using a load of products I helped in a small way,
to develop.  Who can forget Stallion Technology communications
devices coming all the way from little old Brisbane
Australia to sell in the states.  Whoo hoo.  Export, I love it.
Next time you go and get a healthy and
cheap meal at Taco-Bell, say hello to my network.

Export 101 for small hungry companies.

Make it

   better...
      cheaper...
         faster...

You don't have to publish in the USA.  Plenty of good Universities 
all over the place.

>I would keep an eye on MR. Mark Addinall.  His
>desire to leave other possible causes of MS

That is going to work sonny.  I'm an old hand at swapping
mail with people who have an opinion based on very little
evidence; an unwillingness to defend a position with little else
but a conspiricory theory.  In the groups better know for being
shark ponds this is called "a strawman" argument.  Only
tried by the newest of newcomers, or most dedicated
of net.kooks.


> is curiosly stringent 

"Methinks he doth protest too much" 
(variants: "the truth hurts, doesn't it?" and "touched a raw 
nerve there..."). A classic piece of rhetoric manipulation. One
 person accuses the other of something scandalous; the 
inevitable angry denial is then interpreted as 'proof' that 
the original accusation stands. 

Sorry.  I'm far to good to fall for that one.


Of course it is.  You may be deluded enough to think
you can know all things just by wishing it so.  My approach is
rather more mundane.  Pick an area that looks promising,
then get on with it.


>and his
>willingness to burn all bridges in defending such behavior is rather telling
>I would think.


Yawn.  Propaganda has to be better presented than that.
For an explanation of what the kook is up to with this: see,

http://www.yiffle.com/files/misc/propg.htm

>
>Yes, he, and guys like him, 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Dum de dum...

To easy sunshine.
(ectually girls like we as well)

Ad-hominum.  Attack by innuendo.  Yawn.

>will most certainly lable anyone an "idiot" who
>doesnt tow the party line. 

More conspiricory.

> I would do as he commands and just remain on the
>sidelines watching to see who is who, and who serves your interests best.  A
>person smashing his way to the truth, or a willing and gleefull crowd who
>wishes to stem all alternative scientific viewpoints into the cause of MS.


A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack 
a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is 
a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of 
Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a
whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists 
were drunk." 

Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell 
us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?" 


>Your ethics will guide you, as mine guide me... and as MR. Mark Addinall
>guides his.  It is curious though why someone would lable anyone an idiot

Easy.  Continual displays of idiocy.  The burden of
proof is on you.  Make it happen.

>for just wanting an honest examination into the roll of mycoplasms into the
>diseases of MS, diabetis, arthrits, asthma, crohns, etc...   

The Galileo Argument.  Look how I suffer.....
Boring.


>One would
>almost think an agenda was at work.  I wonder where the money goes for the
>treatments of these diseases?  The old adage, of, follow the money, suits
>our situation rather well.  Suspiciously so.

Assuming the answer.  An argument based on a tautology.

>
>
>
>> >and ask you how many diseases have been cured in
>> >the last 50 years and who's benefited from all our research ?
>>
>> Cople of important points.  Looking at the last 50 years in a linear
>> model to judge 'cures' vs 'research' is not valid.
>
>It is.  Read "Multiple Sclerosis" written by J. H. D. Miller  M.D., F.R.C.P.

Appeal To Authority: 

"Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." (But 
a statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. 
Or perhaps Einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his
statement in some specific context. And so on.) 

To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an 
exact quote. It's more convincing if the quote contains context, 
and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from. 

See, the way to do it honestly goes like this...

I disagree.  From my observations in the use of Information
Technology generally, and in some specific areas, are greatly
improving the speed of design and delivery.

(see, that was my opinion based on observation.
At this stage it means little. But then....)

For an example that is more administrative than pure
science, see "Technology and Standards - Opportunities
for Clinical Trials.  Dr Rebecca D Kush,
President, Clinical Data Interchange Standards
Consortium (CDISC)) where (in relation to the adoption
of Information technology) she states:

"Another advantage of the Internet for clinical trials
is that it vastly simplifies the validation and support
effort associated with the clinical trials data collection
applications."

Getting back to the "Hard science", I believe through
twenty years of working with computational systems, that 
the processing power available makes modelling taskspossible, where
none existed before.

From Micheal Sundstrom - Former Chairman, Oncology Research
Review Commitee, Vice President, Discovery Research.

"Structural proteomics approaches have fundementally
changed the structural biology research area and rapidly
substantiate knowledge of protien folds at an
unprecidented rate..."

Business Briefing - Future Drug Discovery 2001.


>Your education as well as your invalid conclusions 


Ambiguous Assertion.  Boring.

>are interestingly
>self-serving.  I wonder why that might be?

Wonder away.  Asking would be quicker.  Although we don't want
to get any facts in the way of a good conspiracy theory do
we?

>
>> Genomic research
>> is and has been in a logrithmic state for a scant
>> half a decade.  Craig Venter and his team has just finished
>> mapping the human genome.  About 35,000 genes.  The project
>> came in TWO YEARS earlier than predictions.  That is a significant
>> number in medical and computational research.  Things
>> aren't cheap, and they don't come early.  That was yesterday's
>> paradigm.  Now we have 350,000 protiens to decode.
>> Significant progress is already being made already.  Long
>> evaluation and testing regimes exist for a good reason.
>> All the magic of science aside, using traditional drug design
>> left the question "I wonder what it is going to do to
>> people?".
>
>Genomic research will and can only serve to expose HOW  the disease of MS
>attacks us and to whom is succeptable,

Ignoring for a moment that this little bit is
an argument by partial connsession "Yes x, y and z may be
true BUT..."

So, I'll just stop you before the but.  The above is a bloody good
start.


> never to why we get it.  

Argument To The Future: 
arguing that evidence will someday be discovered (or not)
which will (then) support your point. 




>MS isnt an
>inherited genetic disease.  Its not a birth defect.  Its an aquired disease.
>Genome research can only describe the inner workings of the disease process,
>not the cause, and certainly not the route of our infection. 

You forgot to add "in my humble opinion..."


> An honest and
>moral researcher would never ever, in a million years, suggest otherwise.

Argument by emotive language.  Ho hum....  Try again.

>MS isnt a birth defect.  Its a disease caught by people with a particular
>geneticaly aquired immune system.  That is all.  



>Genome research is a
>useless piece of dung in regard to curing us. 

Well, as an argument that was wrong on so many counts
it would take to long to list them.  But it does further define
your personality.


> Although I am possitive that
>it will be used to find some ever more enriching "treatments" for the
>pharms.  Who is it again who owns these pharms?  You do know the answer to
>that, dont you MR. Mark Addinall?

Not "The Elders of Zion" is it?
Your telling the story sunshine.  Out with it.


>
>
>
>>
>> We are developing the science the speed this
>> process.  Structural proteomics as a tool for
>> function assignment and target validation.
>>
>> Development is moving at an unprecedented rate.
>>
>> And when things get faster, they have a tendency
>> to get cheaper.  The genome is in public domain.  All
>> the tools used are in public domain.  You can fold
>> protiens at home if you wish, not at any great rate,
>> but 10 years ago you just could not.
>>
>> There are more benifits than "THE CURE" for any
>> condition, a more comfortable method of
>> drug delivery, toxicity control, predictions of absorbtion,
>> metabolism and the excretion properties of drugs.
>> In the near future the in-silico models of drug
>> properties will allow a full pharmacokinetic
>> profile to be modelled.
>
>Nope.  The times of involunteery human expirementation has come to an end.

Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You are the one that has now linked the use and development of
drugs to "human experimentation".  So, as is the way of the 
internet, I can keep that as fact, and present it to you
for years and years and years.


>There can never be a benefit greater than a cure.  

Classic strawman.  Clumsy, but classic.  The gentle reader
will note I stated "more" not greater.  So now that
loose-brain here has built a thing of straw, let's go and...


>Ever.  If there is a
>benefit, "greater than a cure", 

Punch that hay-golem...

>please MR. Mark Addinall, tell us what that
>benefit might be.  

And again...

>I am sure we are all rapt with attention on what that
>benefit might be.  Just what is this "benefit"?  

And again...

>MR. Mark Addinall, what
>benefit is it that is greater than a CURE for us?  

And again.  So, not only was the strawman erected and bashed,
a little argument by repetition got thrown in as well.



>Dare you tell us poor lab
>rats?  Or is it beyond our limited intellect?

Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument yet again.
Some authors want you to know they're suffering for their beliefs.
For example, "Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; 
they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my 
ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait;
I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that 
all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of 
TIME." 


So, for thos who missed the benifits of research...

"a more comfortable method of
drug delivery, toxicity control, predictions of absorbtion,
 metabolism and the excretion properties of drugs. "

Wothy causes I feel.

>
>MONEY?

Yes please.  How would you like to send it?

>
>
>
>> Cures and preventions of conditions.
>> Smallpox?
>> Lassa Fever?
>> Diptheria?
>> Haemophilus Influenza type B.?
>> Hepititus A?
>> Measles?
>> Pertussis?
>> Invasive meningoccocal diease?
>> Poliomyelitis?
>> Rubella?
>> Tetanus?
>> Malaria?
>
>Barring inoculations... 


Argument by fast talking.  When confronted with evidence even the
most dedicated net.kook can only concede as fact, the only
course left is a quick shuffle of the shells, and
hope no-one noticed.

Smallpox was once worldwide in scope; before vaccination was 
practiced almost everyone eventually contracted the disease. In 
1980, the World Health Assembly announced that smallpox had 
been eradicated and recommended that all countries cease 
vaccination. 


Not a bad effort.  Got rid of a disease that infected nearly all 
the Planet, left horrible disfugurment and had a 30% mortality.

>are you seriously suggesting that any pharm has come
>up with a cure for any of the above? 

Yes.
Argument by meaningless question.  I have just stated my
assertion.


> Just money enriching treatments that
>benefit the pharms.  I may be mistaken, Ive made mistakes in the past, 

NO SHIT.......?


>and
>Im sure to again... but please tell us... what cures are you speaking of?

Years ago, diphtheria was a widespread and greatly feared 
disease. Through the 1920's it struck about 150,000 people a year, 
and killed about 15,000 of them. Since then, these figures have
dropped considerably, thanks to parents who have gotten their 
children immunized against this terrible disease. There were only 
918 cases in 1960, 435 in 1970, and 128 in 1976. 
(CDC figures).

Diptheria had a 10% mortality rate.  We know a lot more about
diptheria toxin and antitoxin through technology and proteomics.


In the period 1999-2000 9 people were infected in Australia's
population of 19,000,000.  None were hospitalised due
to treatment with anti-biotic and antitoxin.

Isn't science wonderful?


>Or were you simply refering to "treatments" enriching the pharms?

Yep.  Those 9 people must have injected BILLIONS and BILLIONS
into the covert drug economy.

(for those of you now picking up, that was a valid use
of Reductio Ad Absurdum.  Making fun of the assertion
that huge amounts of money are made treating a disease
that affects less than 10 people in my country.)

>
>
>>
>> > Not the
>> >patients that's for sure.
>>
>> Dunno.  Smallpox was pretty horrific.
>
>No cure.  Just an innoculation.  And still, decades later... no cure.  

No need, no smallpox.

>SO
>what is your point?  Do you even have one?

Lots.


>
>
>
>> >It's a sure-fire way of continuing to line the
>> >pockets of a flagging health industry
>>
>> The health industry is not flagging, it's
>> real healthy.  Smaller leaner and meaner (like me ;-).
>> Two or three monopolies controlled drugs in
>> the world.  That way change is slow, prices are
>> kept high.  See oil for a good example.
>>
>> >and it won't get anyone out of a
>> >wheelchair.
>>
>> Could probably have done that already given funding.
>
>Fuckin-A,  we agree on something.
>
>
>> My country has four brand new submarines at only three billion
>> a pop.  I'm unsure who we are going to blow up.  Most
>> of the boats north of me seem to be made out of wood.
>>
>> We are also planning a few dozen shiny new Joint
>> Fighter Strke aircraft for another few billion.  Defense
>> is important, but the difference in spending
>> is appaling.
>>
>> >
>> >HRT's pretty trendy right now as is breast cancer.  Know that there is no
>> >word for menopause in Japanese - maybe it's because they don't like to
>talk
>> >about it (sarcasm).  Also know that breast cancer prevalence is low too.
>>
>> Got the numbers?  Could be a load of things.
>> Diet springs to mind.  Not my bag so I dunno.
>>
>> >Genes ?  Well, when the Japanese come over to our wonderful lands their
>> >chances will skyrocket within a generation or two.  Maybe it's the genes
>the
>> >Immigration Officer alters on the way in... or ... may---be ... it ...
>just
>> >... could ... be ... something ... else ...
>> >
>> >I knew a man who drank 2 gallons of methylated spirits and went into a
>coma.
>> >Tefal-heads have now identified the genes responsible for responding to
>> >methanol toxicity.  He's still dead but all embryos from his town will be
>> >screened for properly-performing liver genes and manipulated accordingly.
>>
>> So you think that the proven genetic screening for the
>> transfer of Parkinsons and other similar conditions
>> is trivial or funny?
>
>The identification of genetic profiles leading to disease representations
>from infections is simply that, and nothing more.  The genome research is
>only showing what inherited immunological profiles lead to what conditions
>when exposed to a particular pathogen.  That is all.  TO suggest otherwise
>is assinine.  Parkinsons isnt a birth defect. 

Argument By Laziness 
(Argument By Uninformed Opinion): 
The arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. 
He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion
is not treated with respect

The causes of Parkinsons is not completely understood but a 
known cause is the degeneration of a group of nerves in the centre 
of the brain called the substantia nigra. These nerves produce 
a chemical messenger called dopamine. When 80% of dopamine
 is lost, the symptoms of Parkinsons disease are produced. 

At present, it is not known what causes the degeneration 
of the substantia nigra.




> Neither is MS, etc... to

Argument From Spurious Similarity.


And getting close to running out of wind time.....


Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement): 

this is the extreme version of Argument By Prestigious Jargon. 
An invented vocabulary helps the effect, and some net.kooks use 
lots of CAPitaLIZation. However, perfectly ordinary words can be 
used to baffle. For example, "Omniscience is greater than 
omnipotence, and the difference is two. Omnipotence plus two 
equals omniscience. META = 2." [From R. Buckminster Fuller's 
No More Secondhand God.] 

Here is another example.

>suggest otherwise is to have the education you have (supposedly) twisted
>into such an odd construct as to be nearly incapable of viewing reality
>logically.  Parkinsons is simply a representation of what occurs to an
>individual with a genetic profile that leads to that condition when exposed
>to a pathogen and/or multiple pathogens.  That is all. 


And of course...
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)


> If you havent
>figured that out, you are forever incapable of it.  Your time will be
>wasted.  That, or, there is a reason behind it.  Your conditioning has a
>strong hold over you, one that you are too weak to ever conquer.  I pity
>you.  Your time and energy will be spent on nothing more than enriching the
>pharms, enslaving the diseased, and excusing away your own incompetance...
>all the while blaming the patient for having the wrong genes.  Pathetic.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >That was harsh but I had to say it.  This is another wonderful
>> >procrastination people, and we're not getting any better.
>>
>> So?  Do something.
>
>Somebody "is" Mark. 


What?  Exactly?

And we will wrap up with.

Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness): 

refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks
 it is well enough proved. For example, there are still 
Flat Earthers. 


> You can have faith in that.  And this guy, he is a
>total ass, and he never stops, NEVER, and he always wins.   ALWAYS.  "If"
>you have MS, I will have you cured... despite yourself.  Do your best to
>ignore mycoplasms (and brucella) all you want... ill still save you.  You
>can spit in my face, call those with brains that agree with me "idiots", and

That "person" that just agreed with you seems to be
using the same machine as you.  Curious.  Still, friends use
my boxes from time to time.



>I will still cure you.  It might be time to tie a red string around your
>left wrist, if you know what I mean.

No I don't.  "Red string"?

You're not very good at this considering you are
"The smartest man on the planet".  Just warming
up are you?

Your argument consist of so many fallacies it could be a textbook
example of how to argue for a sure-thing net.kook
award.

Many moons ago, a newsgroup was formed to tear
down false scientific 'truths' and ridiculous
arguments by the old ones.  It is called aus.flame.
I suggest we take this over, and leave these good people alone.

Mark Addinall.

>
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>