From: dawgface@ten.hut
"Kali" wrote in message
news:fudfct$asc$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:
>>
>>"Kali" wrote in message
>>news:ftr0sf$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?
>
> No, I'm talking to you. Marcia knows you can't back up what you
> say.
>
Rechecked the headers, I was mistaken.
> Your debate style:
>
There is no style. Peter set the tenor.
>>> - Ignore (snip it out entirely, unread)
You do realize how assinine that statement is?
>>> - Repeat blatant assertion
Since the thought never gets through your head and you're blind to the
points.
>>> - 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".
Discredit the source, absolutely when it is biased, based on hearsay,
and your point is totally discredited by your statement that I base my
arguments on "they are intellectuals, so they have no credibility". That
is absurdity in its highest form, that is elitist BS speaking and your
way of baseless discediting anothers thought.
"Discredit the source" was the very first line of defense by Peter then
backed up by yourself when I posted links uncommented on. While I
recognize that some peoples ideas have some possible merit based on
their education, yours doesn't, Peters may but I am not aware of his
education. I looked at the foundation of the arguments Peter presented
and saw their purposes. Posted the same. You bunch of idiots blithly
dismiss others thoughts and basis for them due to your own bias and
truth matters little to you.
>>>
>>> Heh.
>>>
>>
>>Heh, you a senior citizen of something, there were no links in this
>>thread to snip that were posted by you.
>
> I didn't say there were.
>
> In fact, I explained why I didn't bother with it, and like a
> champ, you demonstrate below why I was right not to bother:
>
>>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)
>
> See my point above on Frank's debate arsenal: Discredit the
> source.
>
Well well, blind as a bat I see. Anyone aware of the processes required
or the dance involved to get funding for projects knows full well what I
said is highly likely. No doubt you don't see since you skip read my
posts due to your elitist ego and miss the points, then you show your
obvious disdain while you acuse me of the very thing you did from the
begining.
>>Look at all the recent Nobel prizes that were blatant lies.
>
> Here you make a claim that you'll refuse to substantiate.
>
No doubt since you will attack the sources simply because I post links
to them. You are far to ignorant to recognize the truth of the matter
and most likle blindly follow others in their lemming ways of advance
the religion of GW. Yet even though you'd tout it you don't even follow
the recommendations in your daily life with the simple things. and
probably tout ethanol as future fuel too. LOL.
>> 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.
>
> What does Linda's opinion of Dubya have to do with panic
> disorder, Frank?
>
Idiot, GW=Global Warming.
>>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.
>
> Ignorance of peer review noted.
>
>>There is simply too much collusion either willing or forced.
>
> Another claim you can't substantiate.
>
Oh I can sunstatiate if in various fields as well. No doubt you can
substantiate it yourself if you were willing to be truthfull about it,
only you would probably say, that is what they thought then but we know
better now since we have more facts. Typical excuses to be polite rather
than say, had they done their work they wouldn't look so stupid.
>>Better you should play the part of being Peter's doting mother.
>
> You keep wanting to see me as mother.
>
Hardly, you're an "alpha bitch" a leader amongst women or you ego sees
it that way.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
