From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   "Kali"  wrote in message   
   news:ftr0sf$l3k$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   > In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   >>   
   >>"marcia"  wrote in message   
   >>news:49344530-28e8-4e90-8865-bbb78f5a6cd0@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...   
   >>> On Apr 11, 9:14 pm, "Frank"  wrote:   
   >>>> "Kali"  wrote in message   
   >>>>   
   >>>> news:ftoqhh$cbq$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > In , Frank dawgf...@ten.hut said:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> >>"Kali"  wrote in message   
   >>>> >>news:ftm07o$k03$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >>>> >>> In , Frank dawgf...@ten.hut said:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> >>My dear, who are you to define a panic attack? Do you have some   
   >>>> >>narrow   
   >>>> >>sphere definition that excludes all other forms of panic attacks?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > Don't take my word for it, Frank. Look it up.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Shame you don't have the proof to post.   
   >   
   > You wouldn't accept the proof Frank. It's what you do when   
   > presented with evidence.   
   >   
      
   You were replying to Marcia?   
      
   > - Ignore (snip it out entirely, unread)   
   > - Repeat blatant assertion   
   > - Discredit the source. In this case it would be the APA, and   
   > something along the lines of "MD's, Ph.D.'s and others who wrote   
   > the DSM-IV-TR are intellectuals, so they have no credibility".   
   >   
   > Heh.   
   >   
      
   Heh, you a senior citizen of something, there were no links in this   
   thread to snip that were posted by you.   
      
   And as to any sources supplied by Ph.D's, and others in any field none   
   are to be trusted based on what they write until they have a very long   
   history behind them, even then many are apt to supply fraudulent   
   material for the sake of funding (welfare)   
      
   Look at all the recent Nobel prizes that were blatant lies. Look at Gore   
   who is about as bright as yourself and the GW bs he's been touting and   
   all the fraudulent support for it.   
      
   Yes, your "logic" is seriously flawed, and don't even bother bringing up   
   peer review unless the peer review comes from well known harsh critics.   
   There is simply too much collusion either willing or forced.   
      
   Better you should play the part of being Peter's doting mother.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)