Chiropractic Healthiness

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->  They are only the latest in a long line of examples of > a number of  types — the wannabe scientist or doctor, the delusional and > bitter self-styled victim,  the paranoid conspiracy theorist, the acolyte > of a famous quack.  I have learned to enjoy making them  look silly. > make sure you count yourself in there also!  see, here you go again, trying to be > all uppity and insulting to the general masses of this board….(at least the ones > that question your attitude and motives) > as a new poster here,  i repeatedly see posters such as yourself and yarrow > lumping the whole lot of us folks who admit to liking and using one or more forms > of alternative healing into one big pile of trash that needs to be dumped. > obviously, you have had your share of "bad blood" and flame wars with a couple of > posters that you constantly mention….hmmmm, might be a love/hate thing goin’ > on??  you obviously enjoy it–i believe i recall you saying you have been devoting > yourself to this "cause" for 4 years now? that, in itself, speaks volumes.

Response:

> > Well then, I guess you can understand why some of us question some of the more > ridiculous claims that are made on this NG. > i never said that i had a problem with the ridiculous claims getting debunked. i > DID make it a point to tell the self-appointed resident staff of debunkers that > most of us who have tendencies toward using alternative healing methods can spot > (AND IGNORE) the ridiculous claims all on our own.

Where has any skeptic here "self-appointed" themselves as a "resident staff debunker"?  Just because a very few people here use the same tools when evaluating claims doesn’t mean that they should be so labeled. > my problem is with the debunkers attacking just about everyone, spammer or not, > ridiculous claim or not.

Not ridiculous in whose opinion?  When a skeptic challenges someone on a claim, they usually do so by pointing out things known to be contrary to said claim.  And, this is a discussion group.  And the method used by skeptics here is, usually, rational debate. > some of us (though we might not be as scholarly as af or as scientific as > yourself) CAN and DO think for ourselves and employ our own good judgement with > what types of alternative healing methods we wish to test.

Who has said that you are or act otherwise?  Can you show me where anyone here has said that you can’t or won’t think for yourself? > so, you see, all of the debunking is really not necessary….although yarrow and > af obviously assume we are all a bunch of new age air heads ready to snap up the > latest expensive, useless offer.

I have never seen AF make anything even remotely like this sweeping generalization. I don’t read Yarrow’s posts much but I doubt that she does either.  Again, show me some evidence of this claim.  See how this works? > So why is it that A. Fox and I get labeled "undead" and called "stupid" and > "ignorant"?  Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled > "ignorant"?  Why do I feel like we are on the other side of the looking glass? > i have never called anyone ignorant, undead or stupid.

No.  But it has been done over and over.  And it is often just thrown into a thread without any reference to the topic under discussion.  As for you, above you have made some sweeping generalizations which are intended to reinforce the negative view some posters hold of skeptics.  And, again, I’d really like to see your evidence of this. >  and why would having experienced childbirth first hand make me ignorant?

Who said this?  Of course it wouldn’t. > are you against the perpetuation of the human race? although, i have to admit, > some folks definitely > should NOT be procreating…

What is this in reference to?  I think that you’re putting words in someone’s mouth to help your case. hd

Response:

oh, dont tell arfy-erfy that i have some of them there readin skills! i appreciate the apology though completely unnecessary! although some folks here sure appear to be overly grumpy, you have given me some background so i can better cope. maybe the spirit of my long dead ancestor benjamin franklin will possess me and give me wisdom and more humor….one can only hope. "Those disputing, contradicting, and confuting people are generally unfortunate in their affairs. They get victory, sometimes, but they never get good will, which would be of more use to them."     Benjamin Franklin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > So why is it that A. Fox and I get labeled "undead" and called "stupid" and > > "ignorant"?  Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled > > "ignorant"?  Why do I feel like we are on the other side of the looking glass? > i have never called anyone ignorant, undead or stupid.  and why would having > experienced childbirth first hand make me ignorant? are you against the > perpetuation of the human race? although, i have to admit, some folks definitely > should NOT be procreating…. > I wasn’t accusing you of being ignorant because you had experienced childbirth, I > was making an analogy.  I come from three generations of chemists.  I am trained as > a scientist and engineer, but on this newsgroup, I get called "ignorant" and > "illiterate" (not to mention "undead") for questioning wacky claims made by people > who have no training in chemistry (or physics or math or medicine or ….).  By > analogy,  how would you feel if you were called "ignorant" for questioning wacky > claims about which you have direct experience and know to be wacky?  What if your > direct experience was backed up by the experimental data of generations of > scientists worldwide? > Anyway, I apologize.  I did not intend to call you ignorant.  I was merely trying > to explain why we "skeptics" are sometimes a little grumpy.  My experience has been > that certain people, but not the skeptics, start most of the ad hominem attacks > (although a couple of the skeptics sure seem to enjoy responding in kind). > — > It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either. >                 — Mark Twain

Response:

you seem somewhat annoyed by lil ole me… and just so you know, grammar and syntax can be used "poorly" to set a mood or feeling…. ever read lonesome dove? i am going for a mood of, oh, i dunno…laid back, easy going, sometimes cutesie if i must…. what are YOU going for? internet professor of the year? mr. perfect debater? > Then take an English Studies course.  Anyone fluent with the language will interpret it the way i > did.  And you complain about the pompous attitude of skeptics.

thanks for the tip, maybe i SHOULD go back for my masters….. > I read it with a knowledge of common English usage in America.

how nice for you….most of us admit to finding email and internet posts sometimes somewhat open to interpretion based on the mindset of the reader at the time….. > You have said NOTHING that is substantiated by anything other than your own feelings.  You are very > unhappy with my refusal to accept your opinions based solely on your your word.  Tough.  It’s a > tactic used by little children.  You may have noted.

i am not unhappy at all, you appear to have some issues though. and guess what erfy arfy, i dont HAVE to substantiate ANYTHING i say….nanny nanny boo boo….oh, sorry, that is the little child in me shining through yet again…… that is the beauty of the internet….so as you SURLY, skeptic, scientific types are so fond of saying: dont read my posts anymore. hey, did you see that!! i made an alliteration!! whooeee! i catch on fast, dont i?? > you know what arfy,  you are a champion word-twister. > That’s a direct accusation that I’m an unscrupulous debater.  Show me some proof or get lost. > i give you the blue NG ribbon, and i am > slinking off to bed with my tail between my legs. next time i pop in, though, i will get out my > thesaurus and my ole style handbooks and trounce your hyperbole a new one. > Start with a book on basic grammar and syntax. > erf

nah, too boring for me…..i think the e.e. cummings look is gonna make a big comeback….that’ll just make your day, wont it!

Response:

> you want me to go back and find all of the snippets that made me think the way i do??? my head > will EXPLODE, my fingers will fall off! (well, here is ONE:) > i posted: > some of us who lurk on newsgroups and BBs are quite able to recognize > spammers and "quacks" without your dubious help. > AF replied: >So?  Many cannot.  We have abundant proof of that here. > that came across to me as rather general and sweeping, to use your terms.

If you use common english terms, that statement is simply pointing out that many people on this NG take the rantings of quacks on faith.  It is not, by any stretch, a sweeping generalization. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > There are many dull and ignorant > > > people in the world, and on this newsgroup, who take any serious > > > intellectual challenge to their worldview, no matter how false it may be, > > > as a personal insult.  THis is usually because they are incapable of > > > refuting or even answering the challenge substantively, or because they > > > are suffering from a personality disorder which makes them paranoid and > > > defensive (which is often what attracts them to conspiratorial views of > > > reality in the first place). > Where in the above do you see anything to support your assertion that AF "obviously > assume(s) we are all a bunch of new age air heads ready to snap up the latest expensive, > useless offer"?  He is addressing a chronic problem that skeptics have when dealing with > people who hold irrational views.  That isn’t a sweeping generalization.  It is, in fact, > quite specific. > maybe you read it that way. i sure didnt.

Then take an English Studies course.  Anyone fluent with the language will interpret it the way i did.  And you complain about the pompous attitude of skeptics. > > >>So why is it that A. Fox and I get labeled "undead" and called "stupid" and > > >>"ignorant"?  Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled > > >>"ignorant"?  Why do I feel like we are on the other side of the looking glass? > > (the experience being referred to–or at least that is how it looked in the > > response–was to my having experienced childbirth.) > That is clearly not what he meant.  He is saying that even though he argues from experience, > he is labeled "ignorant" and questions why his experiences should be dismissed as leaving > him ignorant.  He then uses the literary tactic known as hyperbole to take this line of > reasoning to an absurd extreme and point out that by the same logic one could say the same > about you given your experience with child bearing.  Get it now? > you got ALL THAT out of "Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled > "ignorant"?!?!  you literate types….you slay me, you really do!!!

Then shut up and lurk.  If you have such a problem understanding the words of people with a good grasp of the English language, then you should educate yourself before putting another foot in your mouth.  You clearly misinterpreted the poster’s comments and twisted them to suit your bias. > again, you read it with your bias.

I read it with a knowledge of common English usage in America. > i was in the mindset of someone who had just tried to take on > ya’ll’s hopeless debunking task

I agree that it is almost impossible to use reason to change an opinion that wasn’t arrived at by using it. > Again, WHO said that you couldn’t.  You consistently make the assertion that some skeptic > here has but you can’t name them or show where such a thing was said.

I note your lack of response. > Asprin and tetracycline have proved benefits in certain applications.  Especially asprin. > Tetracycline’s a bit long in the tooth now.  What is your point?  Do you have such a bias > against evidence based medicine that you need to slag it in general? > i slag everything in general. that’s me. slag-o-rama. see, i just get so tired of rereading your > posts to try to rebutt…snip snip snip…so i give up.

IOW you’re unable to form a cogent reply. > slag slag slag.

Crybaby. > and, BTW,  none of my claims/feelings are unsubstantiated. i can say whatever i want, you will > not agree with me, i gather.

You have said NOTHING that is substantiated by anything other than your own feelings.  You are very unhappy with my refusal to accept your opinions based solely on your your word.  Tough.  It’s a tactic used by little children.  You may have noted. > you know what arfy,  you are a champion word-twister.

That’s a direct accusation that I’m an unscrupulous debater.  Show me some proof or get lost. > i give you the blue NG ribbon, and i am > slinking off to bed with my tail between my legs. next time i pop in, though, i will get out my > thesaurus and my ole style handbooks and trounce your hyperbole a new one.

Start with a book on basic grammar and syntax. erf

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> When a skeptic challenges someone on a claim, they usually do so by pointing out things > known to be contrary to said claim.  And, this is a discussion group.  And the method > used by skeptics here is, usually, rational debate. > you know what? i actually started to try to go back and find all of the phrases from the > posts of yarrow, AF and the like that set me to thinking as i do, and i thought, no way! > i just remember reading them, and i know what i read and i know what it made me think. > you obviously dont agree, so no amount of time i spend going back and copy/pasting is > gonna change your mind. > In other words you can’t.  You just accuse me of being closed minded and rest your case. > Very lame.  You snipped the following:

you want me to go back and find all of the snippets that made me think the way i do??? my head will EXPLODE, my fingers will fall off! (well, here is ONE:) i posted: > some of us who lurk on newsgroups and BBs are quite able to recognize > spammers and "quacks" without your dubious help.

AF replied: >So?  Many cannot.  We have abundant proof of that here.

that came across to me as rather general and sweeping, to use your terms. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have never seen AF make anything even remotely like this sweeping generalization. >I don’t read Yarrow’s posts much but I doubt that she does either.  Again, show me >some evidence of this claim.  See how this works? > indeed i do: AF said: > > There are many dull and ignorant > > people in the world, and on this newsgroup, who take any serious > > intellectual challenge to their worldview, no matter how false it may be, > > as a personal insult.  THis is usually because they are incapable of > > refuting or even answering the challenge substantively, or because they > > are suffering from a personality disorder which makes them paranoid and > > defensive (which is often what attracts them to conspiratorial views of > > reality in the first place). > Where in the above do you see anything to support your assertion that AF "obviously > assume(s) we are all a bunch of new age air heads ready to snap up the latest expensive, > useless offer"?  He is addressing a chronic problem that skeptics have when dealing with > people who hold irrational views.  That isn’t a sweeping generalization.  It is, in fact, > quite specific.

maybe you read it that way. i sure didnt. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > >  and why would having experienced childbirth first hand make me ignorant? > > Who said this?  Of course it wouldn’t. > JX said it: > >>So why is it that A. Fox and I get labeled "undead" and called "stupid" and > >>"ignorant"?  Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled > >>"ignorant"?  Why do I feel like we are on the other side of the looking glass? > (the experience being referred to–or at least that is how it looked in the > response–was to my having experienced childbirth.) > That is clearly not what he meant.  He is saying that even though he argues from experience, > he is labeled "ignorant" and questions why his experiences should be dismissed as leaving > him ignorant.  He then uses the literary tactic known as hyperbole to take this line of > reasoning to an absurd extreme and point out that by the same logic one could say the same > about you given your experience with child bearing.  Get it now?

you got ALL THAT out of "Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled "ignorant"?!?!  you literate types….you slay me, you really do!!! again, you read it with your bias. i was in the mindset of someone who had just tried to take on ya’ll’s hopeless debunking task with todd-baby-head-squasher by firmly stating my experience with childbirth as my yardstick. and i know all about hyperbole, thanks. (i received a sweet little email from todd…isnt he special? can we not sic him on the FDA??) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> this whole cut n paste thing for sake of argument is really so boring. some of you seem > to get off on it though. > But it does help clear things up.  And it exposes unscrupulous debaters who try to change > their story mid argument. > i think i will pass from now on. i am here to try to learn. i like to hear about > positive experiences that folks have had. i am utterly confident in my own ability to > recognize quacks and those out to make a quick buck. > Again, WHO said that you couldn’t.  You consistently make the assertion that some skeptic > here has but you can’t name them or show where such a thing was said. > then again, i believed everything the FDA spit out my whole life….right up until i had > a child and started hearing about rBGH and GE’d plants (about 2 months ago) and doing my > own research/debunking in that arena. > Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. > why not spend ya’lls efforts and talents where they will do some good? > Pot. Kettle. etc. > i am finished wasting space here arguing. obviously there are those of you out there who > "know it all" and you will have your way. > Boo hoo. > i will continue to try to pitch in with my own opinions and experiences when it comes to > alternative healing…if you pinch-noses attack me, well then, all is fair…. > If you make a questionable claim, of course.  So far you’ve just made unsubstantiated > allegations about people with whom you disagree. > for those of you that have not had positive experiences with alternative healing: > take two aspirin, down some tetracycline, and call your too-busy doctor in the morning. > Asprin and tetracycline have proved benefits in certain applications.  Especially asprin. > Tetracycline’s a bit long in the tooth now.  What is your point?  Do you have such a bias > against evidence based medicine that you need to slag it in general? > hd

i slag everything in general. that’s me. slag-o-rama. see, i just get so tired of rereading your posts to try to rebutt…snip snip snip…so i give up. slag slag slag. and, BTW,  none of my claims/feelings are unsubstantiated. i can say whatever i want, you will not agree with me, i gather. you know what arfy,  you are a champion word-twister. i give you the blue NG ribbon, and i am slinking off to bed with my tail between my legs. next time i pop in, though, i will get out my thesaurus and my ole style handbooks and trounce your hyperbole a new one.

Response:

> When a skeptic challenges someone on a claim, they usually do so by pointing out things > known to be contrary to said claim.  And, this is a discussion group.  And the method > used by skeptics here is, usually, rational debate. > you know what? i actually started to try to go back and find all of the phrases from the > posts of yarrow, AF and the like that set me to thinking as i do, and i thought, no way! > i just remember reading them, and i know what i read and i know what it made me think. > you obviously dont agree, so no amount of time i spend going back and copy/pasting is > gonna change your mind.

In other words you can’t.  You just accuse me of being closed minded and rest your case. Very lame.  You snipped the following: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> so, you see, all of the debunking is really not necessary….although yarrow and > af obviously assume we are all a bunch of new age air heads ready to snap up the > latest expensive, useless offer. >>I have never seen AF make anything even remotely like this sweeping generalization. >>I don’t read Yarrow’s posts much but I doubt that she does either.  Again, show me >>some evidence of this claim.  See how this works? > indeed i do: AF said: > There are many dull and ignorant > people in the world, and on this newsgroup, who take any serious > intellectual challenge to their worldview, no matter how false it may be, > as a personal insult.  THis is usually because they are incapable of > refuting or even answering the challenge substantively, or because they > are suffering from a personality disorder which makes them paranoid and > defensive (which is often what attracts them to conspiratorial views of > reality in the first place).

Where in the above do you see anything to support your assertion that AF "obviously assume(s) we are all a bunch of new age air heads ready to snap up the latest expensive, useless offer"?  He is addressing a chronic problem that skeptics have when dealing with people who hold irrational views.  That isn’t a sweeping generalization.  It is, in fact, quite specific. > >  and why would having experienced childbirth first hand make me ignorant? > Who said this?  Of course it wouldn’t. > JX said it: >>So why is it that A. Fox and I get labeled "undead" and called "stupid" and >>"ignorant"?  Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled >>"ignorant"?  Why do I feel like we are on the other side of the looking glass? > (the experience being referred to–or at least that is how it looked in the > response–was to my having experienced childbirth.)

That is clearly not what he meant.  He is saying that even though he argues from experience, he is labeled "ignorant" and questions why his experiences should be dismissed as leaving him ignorant.  He then uses the literary tactic known as hyperbole to take this line of reasoning to an absurd extreme and point out that by the same logic one could say the same about you given your experience with child bearing.  Get it now? > this whole cut n paste thing for sake of argument is really so boring. some of you seem > to get off on it though.

But it does help clear things up.  And it exposes unscrupulous debaters who try to change their story mid argument. > i think i will pass from now on. i am here to try to learn. i like to hear about > positive experiences that folks have had. i am utterly confident in my own ability to > recognize quacks and those out to make a quick buck.

Again, WHO said that you couldn’t.  You consistently make the assertion that some skeptic here has but you can’t name them or show where such a thing was said. > then again, i believed everything the FDA spit out my whole life….right up until i had > a child and started hearing about rBGH and GE’d plants (about 2 months ago) and doing my > own research/debunking in that arena.

Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. > why not spend ya’lls efforts and talents where they will do some good?

Pot. Kettle. etc. > i am finished wasting space here arguing. obviously there are those of you out there who > "know it all" and you will have your way.

Boo hoo. > i will continue to try to pitch in with my own opinions and experiences when it comes to > alternative healing…if you pinch-noses attack me, well then, all is fair….

If you make a questionable claim, of course.  So far you’ve just made unsubstantiated allegations about people with whom you disagree. > for those of you that have not had positive experiences with alternative healing: > take two aspirin, down some tetracycline, and call your too-busy doctor in the morning.

Asprin and tetracycline have proved benefits in certain applications.  Especially asprin. Tetracycline’s a bit long in the tooth now.  What is your point?  Do you have such a bias against evidence based medicine that you need to slag it in general? hd

Response:

> Well then, I guess you can understand why some of us question some of the more > ridiculous claims that are made on this NG.

i never said that i had a problem with the ridiculous claims getting debunked. i DID make it a point to tell the self-appointed resident staff of debunkers that most of us who have tendencies toward using alternative healing methods can spot (AND IGNORE) the ridiculous claims all on our own. my problem is with the debunkers attacking just about everyone, spammer or not, ridiculous claim or not. some of us (though we might not be as scholarly as af or as scientific as yourself) CAN and DO think for ourselves and employ our own good judgement with what types of alternative healing methods we wish to test. so, you see, all of the debunking is really not necessary….although yarrow and af obviously assume we are all a bunch of new age air heads ready to snap up the latest expensive, useless offer. > So why is it that A. Fox and I get labeled "undead" and called "stupid" and > "ignorant"?  Perhaps your experience should also cause you to be labeled > "ignorant"?  Why do I feel like we are on the other side of the looking glass?

i have never called anyone ignorant, undead or stupid.  and why would having experienced childbirth first hand make me ignorant? are you against the perpetuation of the human race? although, i have to admit, some folks definitely should NOT be procreating….

Response:

I dont want to look "stupid" but you post confused me . what is skull squashing?And also I could not open any of your links sorry if I am asking to much but I think that this is a subject that I have never seen before and would like to know what it is all about.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hi J., >Your post is forwarded below with all identification removed. >I am posting this reply publicly in hopes of stimulating other RNs to study >fetal skull squashing. >It’s an emergency any way one slices it – and slicing (of vagina’s), BTW, is >associated with fetal skull squashing.  MDs routinely slice vaginas >fraudulently claiming they are doing everything to widen the birth canal >when in fact they are routinely closing the birth canal – up to 4 cm.  See >