WARNING: Industry Seeks to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health On Usenet (updates to item #3 and other text)

PeterB wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" wrote:
PeterB,

Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...

Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
fact, denials.

Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:

Poisoning the well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua [2].

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an
"alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
their purpose here.

Perfect example of well poisoning.

And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:jr8yh.10728$fT1.4419@trndny02...
PeterB wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" wrote:
PeterB,

Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...

Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
fact, denials.

fallacy breath.

Poisoning the well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ral_disclaimer

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a
voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common
resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with
an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing
found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise
required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information
in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee
the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article
may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant
fields.


No formal peer review
We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of
articles. Our active community of editors uses tools such as the
Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing
content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers
may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty
to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty
of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been
vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have
been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected
with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance
of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information
contained in or linked from these web pages.


No contract; limited license
Please make sure that you understand that the information provided here is
being provided freely, and that no kind of agreement or contract is created
between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers
upon which it is housed, the individual Wikipedia contributors, any project
administrators, sysops or anyone else who is in any way connected with this
project or sister projects subject to your claims against them directly. You
are being granted a limited license to copy anything from this site; it does
not create or imply any contractual or extracontractual liability on the
part of Wikipedia or any of its agents, members, organizers or other users.

There is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikipedia regarding
your use or modification of this information beyond the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL); neither is anyone at Wikipedia responsible
should someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may
post on Wikipedia or any of its associated projects.


Trademarks
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights,
personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in
the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their
respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for
any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as
contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the
GFDL licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites
are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such
rights and as such Wikipedia cannot grant any rights to use any otherwise
protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is
at your own risk.


Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the
laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this
information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of
Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to
the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country
or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or
distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and
cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to
this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained
herein.


Not professional advice
If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk
management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in
that area.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer"
Category: Wikipedia disclaimers


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.

LOL! As in disbarred.

Petey

snip

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, "Jan Drew"
wrote:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
The opposite, in fact.
They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.

Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.

jack

en wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, " "
wrote:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
The opposite, in fact.
They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.

Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.

And, the definition I posted is consistent with other similar definitions.

On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" wrote:
PeterB,

Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...

Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
fact, denials.

Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:

Poisoning the well

Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose. No one can
"poison the well" for more than a day, and as you see, I am not
interested in short-term effects. In due time, the irrationality of
any argument becomes apparent. The real question is whether we have
properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
(due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
argument that works for you.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua [2].

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an

"alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
their purpose here.

Perfect example of well poisoning.

And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:30:59 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:06:42 GMT, " "
wrote:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Interesting though that Wikipedia was found to be more accurate than
Encyclopedia Britannica in a recent survey. (abc.net.au)
There are no online sources that make a guarantee of validity.
The opposite, in fact.
They usually make disclaimers about the lack of such.

Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for the discerning.

And, the definition I posted is consistent with other similar definitions.

Absolutely. I've found many great articles on Wikipedia on technical
topics as varied as you could imagine, from bird taxonomy to electric
motor controllers to Gaelic language just to mention three.
You have to be discerning like you do with all stuff on the internet.
If you know nothing, Get a school textbook* from your library. This
will give you enough background to be able to discern whether a site
is telling porkies. Also, who publishes the site will often give a
clue to their veracity. The type of language they use is indicative as
well. Wikipedia has great and wide peer review. Unlike many other
scources of information.

Like when buying a used car, the folk with the best reputation to lose
are often the safest place to buy.

* Not a biology text from Kansas!

jack

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: In due time, the irrationality of any argument becomes apparent.

And yet you keep posting to usenet. Does that mean that the rest of us are
just a wee bit quicker on the uptake than you are?

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Why is it so important that you want to contact the governments of our Earth?"
"Because of Death! Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

PeterB wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" wrote:
PeterB,
Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
fact, denials.
Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:

Poisoning the well

Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose.

Of course it does, and, since you do it regularly, you know it.

No one can
"poison the well" for more than a day,

Utter bull****. Your poison threads go on for days, and when they run
out, you repost. Your intent is clear to a blind man.

and as you see, I am not
interested in short-term effects.

That is why you rePetey, rePetey and rePetey.

In due time, the irrationality of
any argument becomes apparent.

Yours is apparent on the first read. You should be proud.

The real question is whether we have
properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
(due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
argument that works for you.

As pointed out, your intent is clear.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua [2].

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an

"alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
their purpose here.
Perfect example of well poisoning.

And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.

On Feb 8, 9:18 am, Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:46 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "mainframetech" wrote:
PeterB,
Interesting. Post the WARNING message and watch who
attacks...like a dirt magnet on a hog farm...
Others have noticed, Chris, but you may be the first to mention it.
The function (but not the purpose) of the post is simply to
demonstrate this tireless repetition of denials, the inability to
refrain from denying, and the insistence that denials are not, in
fact, denials.
Incorrect, logical fallacy breath. Your purpose is:

Poisoning the well

Even if that were possible it would serve no purpose.

Of course it does, and, since you do it regularly, you know it.

I cannot help what you "think," Markey. I call it like I see it.

No one can

"poison the well" for more than a day,

Utter bull****. Your poison threads go on for days, and when they run
out, you repost. Your intent is clear to a blind man.

You see me as the enemy, Markey, and that's sad. The "Warning" post
explains my position [ref.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....6bc72/?hl=en#],
and I hope you are right that my intent is clear. As for "poison"
posts, your use of "anonymous" emails indicting other posters for
potentially illegal activity is not only juvenile, but probably
criminal. I believe you should apologize to everyone, but especially
to Jan, for a stunt like that.

and as you see, I am not

interested in short-term effects.

That is why you rePetey, rePetey and rePetey.

I repeat the "Warning" post because it accurately describes your
behaviour in the newsgroups. If you are right that it has no meaning,
why do you respond to it? It makes no mention of you or the others
by name. Were the "Warning" post to sit alone and go unnoticed, it
would soon be a fading memory. The truth is that you and the others
are in no position to do that. You cannot feed the reader his daily
dose of pharma porridge without also feeding denials to the "warning"
post, no matter how often it appears. Your efforts on mha would be
meaningless without that dynamic in place, as I've told you before.
When I said I was here to help you get your message out, I wasn't
kidding.

In due time, the irrationality of

any argument becomes apparent.

Yours is apparent on the first read. You should be proud.

I am glad you find it worthy of your time. That is how this works.

The real question is whether we have

properly identified, first, the nature of the argument, and second
(due to overlapping themes), whose argument is whose. I won't snip
the remainder of your considerable effort because it represents the
argument that works for you.

As pointed out, your intent is clear.

When I said earlier that those in your cadre are not my intended
audience, I was quite wrong. But clarity on the part of readers in
general is speculative until they express it for themselves. I have
come to realize it is not my purpose to care about what people think,
believe, or hope for. Even when we don't know it, the fact that we
are each responsible for ourselves, and no one else, is the truth we
live by.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about
someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of
discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term
was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia
Pro Vita Sua [2].

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in
jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information
that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her
friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it
looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect
her friend's response.

Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or
chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:

The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

This is not about persuading anyone to adopt an

"alternate" view of things, however. In my system, there *is* no
alternate view. Instead, there are variously motivated *viewers*
using a variety of definitions that (for many reasons) "work" for
them. The task at hand is to delineate individuals on the basis of
those definitions in order to help everyone more accurately express
their purpose here.
Perfect example of well poisoning.

And, Petey, that is YOUR purpose.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We are still waiting for you to provide specific examples of what the
subject line implies. Does it apply equally to possible "alternate
drug" advocates? Might postings suggesting the classic poster child of
"alternate drug" laetril as a cancer "cure" be some mexican "clinics"
doing marketing to attract some desperate cancer victums?