From: Peter Bowditch on
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>> Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy.
>>
>
>Oh, tell us how it isn't, that should raise a few laughs
>

All I have to do to demonstrate to someone who knows something about
logic is to quote the law:

"In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a
credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
laughed out of the room"


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
> I suspect the only thing she was ever right about was the amount in
> her bank account.
>

do try harder

"We also hear of the noble work of Father Damien among the lepers of Hawaii,
but we are not told that there was not one leper in the whole of the
Hawaiian Islands before the noble work of Jenner reached them. By the
nineties, 10 per cent of the natives were lepers."---Lionel Dole


From: john on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> "In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a
> credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
> laughed out of the room"
>

we all know scopies law but it is a logiocal fallacy dear boy. As stupid
as you could possibly get, and just ad hominem essentially. But that is
what you are reduced to when you have absolutely no argument to refute the
documents on whale.


From: Peter Bowditch on
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a
>> credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
>> laughed out of the room"
>>
>
>we all know scopies law but it is a logiocal fallacy dear boy. As stupid
>as you could possibly get, and just ad hominem essentially. But that is
>what you are reduced to when you have absolutely no argument to refute the
>documents on whale.
>

Please explain why it is a logical fallacy.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: Peter Parry on
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:44:45 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>"We also hear of the noble work of Father Damien among the lepers of Hawaii,
>but we are not told that there was not one leper in the whole of the
>Hawaiian Islands before the noble work of Jenner reached them.

Another unproven unverifiable claim from an unknown source by a
peddler of quack medicine. Is this the best you have?

>Lionel Dole

Luminary of the now long defunct National Anti-Vaccination League in
the 1960's and disciple of the unhinged Miss Lily Loat. Remind us,
what were his qualifications and training?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Homeopathic Stars
Next: Visit this website