CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: clutching at straws
DangerousProduce Views: 21,763
Published: 15 years ago
This is a reply to # 413,140

Re: clutching at straws

You like to pretend to answer questions as your way of talking or debating. You are reacting as if you were asked trick questions. Name calling does not improve your argument.

How is a court of law not a court of reality? Are the attorneys and judges there
working in a fantasyland when they step into court from your viewpoint? Don't they spend time training to handle real disputes, personal injury, accidents? Maybe you know better, what is your court of reality and how is your court of reality different from a law court?

Your egocentric definition of "striking" makes it so, if it is a "striking piece of evidence" from your point of view, regardless that you are the only one among hundreds of people who do not find what you would list as "striking" to be described that way. You can add a list of another 10 (or 100) adjectives, like "wonderful," to the word evidence, it does not add any more real proof to the conclusion that you want everyone to accept.

There isn't any real substance to the word "striking" because of the method you used to obtain the evidence. You hold up a sign in your posts saying "The Lancet article's use of surgery and a lab test is using the gold standard--the 'scientific approach'," remember you said that? But then the evidence, the results, submitted to a lab were not obtained using the gold standard of scientific investigation, were they? You yourself said you did not see any control used as part of getting the evidence you so desire. Then you quickly said any controls were not needed (to cover up that it wasn't a scientifc experiment/trial/study,) but declined to explain why when I asked. You said controls were used in interventions but declined to say what interventions were when I asked. The easier for you to obfuscate.

Potassium Carboxylate. What is it? Why should I believe an explaination involving potassium carboxylate when I don't understand how it fits in??? If I don't understand what you are talking about, I'm not going to believe it. Those posting on these support or Debate Forums give detailed explainations and ask detailed questions in a effort to be understandable. Why don't you? Do you consider yourself above everyone else so you don't have to do so ?

You did not provide an explaination understandable to everyone why this compound is the only thing formed during or after the liver flush. And how it relates to or supports your theory. (You expect someonelse to do your research work and prove your theory for you?) You said the hypothesis "green blobs are green feces" is your theory, right?

Try making some valid points that are empirically connected with abstract reasoning and not just giving definitions.

definitions for those who find it useful:
carbon(C)......non metallic element
...............freely exists as graphite and diamond
...............makes more compounds than all other elements combined

potassium(K)...soft, silver white metal element
...............explosively reactive
...............more reactive than sodium(Na), makes different salts
...............burning substance with (K) adds purple color to flame

self-centered..egocentric one's own wishes hit impress afflict stamp cause to light-as in strike a match lower, as flag or sail take down as tent come upon unexpectedly, as gold

striking.......affecting with strong emotions

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2020

0.672 sec, (2)