| Jan Drew 2006-07-30, 2:25 am |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:HuNyg.12680$v75.2828@fe10.lga...
> Jason Johnson wrote:
>
> Partially correct. After the Jews are gone, the list of "nexts" includes
> Christians, et al.
>
>
> I have not done that with you, except a bit for the H20 bit.
Wrong.
[note the *with you*].
Mark has in fact diverted with his usual trashing.
With *you*--he wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc...8fc1f46a0c6a492
Different toxins act differently. Spend some
time learning the various types of "snake venom" and how they work.
>
>
> Why should I not discount the studies if they are poorly designed? Poorly
> done? Use bad science? Why not?
>
> When I see a "study" conducted by someone (a professor of chemistry no
> less) who thinks that the percentage by molecular weight of one atom in a
> molecule has meaning, why should I not consider that what that person has
> to say to be of questionable merit, at the very least?
Poor Mark. Just keeps proving me right.
>
> Why should I accept a study done by a person who cannot accurately state
> his and his son's credentials when submitting a paper? Who also misstates
> just about every significant medical point when he claims he is doing a
> study? When his IRB is comprised of people he has personal and financial
> ties?
Diverting with personal trashing.
>
> Why should I accept a study by someone who was being paid by attorneys
> involved in litigation, chose a significant percentage of the subjects
> from the clients of those attorneys, and then neglected to tell his
> colleagues?
Again.
>
> There are MANY reasons not to accept studies, and I address them all.
With personal trashing.
You are sooooo easy to see through.
AND....
A liar.
|