From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:00:21 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote:

>http://whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html

Incredulity is always a good idea when faced with incredible claims,
especially unsubstantiated incredible claims.

For example you have apparently kindly helped the remaining citizens
of Bridgend by traveling down there and scattering 15 Holy Hand
Grenades (Quartz, aluminium powder and glue); 70 Tower Busters ( a
paper cup filled with a half/half mix of resin and metal particles
into which is inserted a single quartz crystal) ; 6 Earth Pipes (These
apparently work by pulling the Deadly Orgone energy from the
underground and then releasing Putre Orgone, which is good for living
beings, above ground and below). Oh, and also two toilet rolls whose
function wasn't altogether clear..

It isn't wholly unreasonable for an outside observer to think that
rather than achieving anything you are merely barking mad. Your usual
answer to any comment tends to support this assumption as it often
appears to be the Internet equivalent of the biblical quotations used
by demented religionists :-

Q: "Why do you want to kill people?"
A:"Matthew14:44"

Q: "What qualifications does this snake oil peddler have?"
A: "www.dolphinoil.com/unbelievers/

This really doesn't help the presentation of your case or do anything
to convince people what you are saying has any foundation in fact.

On the available evidence it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the
combination of a known seller of snake oil and someone who believes
that a 555 timer and a few extra components worth a dollar or so will
make a device which cures every disease are several sandwiches short
of a picnic rather than unsung benefactors of mankind.


From: JOHN on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:lav364dc7khsqrkaj2h6qdi7nu7ramcqf7(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:00:21 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>http://whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
>
> Incredulity is always a good idea when faced with incredible claims,
> especially unsubstantiated incredible claims.
>
> For example you have apparently kindly helped the remaining citizens
> of Bridgend by traveling down there and scattering 15 Holy Hand
> Grenades (Quartz, aluminium powder and glue); 70 Tower Busters ( a
> paper cup filled with a half/half mix of resin and metal particles
> into which is inserted a single quartz crystal) ; 6 Earth Pipes (These
> apparently work by pulling the Deadly Orgone energy from the
> underground and then releasing Putre Orgone, which is good for living
> beings, above ground and below). Oh, and also two toilet rolls whose
> function wasn't altogether clear..
>
> It isn't wholly unreasonable for an outside observer to think that
> rather than achieving anything you are merely barking mad. Your usual
> answer to any comment tends to support this assumption as it often
> appears to be the Internet equivalent of the biblical quotations used
> by demented religionists :-
>
> Q: "Why do you want to kill people?"
> A:"Matthew14:44"
>
> Q: "What qualifications does this snake oil peddler have?"
> A: "www.dolphinoil.com/unbelievers/
>
> This really doesn't help the presentation of your case or do anything
> to convince people what you are saying has any foundation in fact.
>
> On the available evidence it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the
> combination of a known seller of snake oil and someone who believes
> that a 555 timer and a few extra components worth a dollar or so will
> make a device which cures every disease are several sandwiches short
> of a picnic rather than unsung benefactors of mankind.
>
>

ad hominem variant. Do try harder.


From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:36:21 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote:

>> On the available evidence it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the
>> combination of a known seller of snake oil and someone who believes
>> that a 555 timer and a few extra components worth a dollar or so will
>> make a device which cures every disease are several sandwiches short
>> of a picnic rather than unsung benefactors of mankind.

>
>ad hominem variant.

Hardly. I think I am right in saying it is a matter of record that you
have stated you believe a simple device made from a few pence worth of
components and commonly called a zapper is capable of curing most if
not all diseases.

Being quite objective that stated belief alone calls into question
your ability to understand either science or technology or the way in
which proof of efficacy can be presented and proven. It is arguable
that such a lack of basic understanding plus your expressed belief in
alien visitors, in mind control weapons in every radio and phone mast
and non-existent secret underground military facilities casts doubt
upon your connection with reality.

Similarly to describe non-Dr Coghill as a purveyor and supporter of
snake oil remedies is objectively correct. He sells or promotes the
quack devices I mentioned earlier. If he makes unsubstantiated and
patently inaccurate statements the only obvious benefit of which are
to his own pocket surely it is right to question them?
From: JOHN on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:eon464t2n61q7ga9trglfhg9kiojqbg7gp(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:36:21 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> On the available evidence it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the
>>> combination of a known seller of snake oil and someone who believes
>>> that a 555 timer and a few extra components worth a dollar or so will
>>> make a device which cures every disease are several sandwiches short
>>> of a picnic rather than unsung benefactors of mankind.
>
>>
>>ad hominem variant.
>
> Hardly. I think I am right in saying it is a matter of record that you
> have stated you believe a simple device made from a few pence worth of
> components and commonly called a zapper is capable of curing most if
> not all diseases.
>
> Being quite objective that stated belief alone calls into question
> your ability to understand either science or technology or the way in
> which proof of efficacy can be presented and proven. It is arguable
> that such a lack of basic understanding plus your expressed belief in
> alien visitors, in mind control weapons in every radio and phone mast
> and non-existent secret underground military facilities casts doubt
> upon your connection with reality.
>
> Similarly to describe non-Dr Coghill as a purveyor and supporter of
> snake oil remedies is objectively correct. He sells or promotes the
> quack devices I mentioned earlier. If he makes unsubstantiated and
> patently inaccurate statements the only obvious benefit of which are
> to his own pocket surely it is right to question them?

Yes, I know, its called ad hominem. Look it up


From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:18:00 +0100, "JOHN" <john(a)nospam.com> wrote:

>> Similarly to describe non-Dr Coghill as a purveyor and supporter of
>> snake oil remedies is objectively correct. He sells or promotes the
>> quack devices I mentioned earlier. If he makes unsubstantiated and
>> patently inaccurate statements the only obvious benefit of which are
>> to his own pocket surely it is right to question them?
>
>Yes, I know, its called ad hominem. Look it up

The article you quoted claimed he was a Dr. He is not. He is neither
a Doctor of Medicine nor entitled to the academic form.

It claimed he "sits on a Government advisory committee on mobile
radiation". He doesn't.

It said he had "examined worldwide studies linking proximity of masts
to depression". Possibly he has, but there is little evidence he has
the qualifications, training or experience to fully understand them.
As he said himself - "OK, so I don�t know a lot of physics. Nor
biochemistry, nor microbiology, anatomy, physiology, radio
engineering, physical chemistry,epidemiology, statistics, ..."

It said "Dr Coghill said last night there was strong circumstantial
evidence that the masts may have triggered depression in those from
Bridgend who took their lives." Neither he nor anyone else has ever
produced credible evidence showing anything of the sort.

It claimed he said "There is evidence of higher suicide rates where
people live near any electrical equipment that gives off radio or
electrical waves." Where is the evidence?

It claimed "Coghill added: "What seems to be happening is that the
electrical energy is having an effect on the chemistry of the brain,
depleting serotonin levels. " There is no objective evidence of
anything of the sort and no evidence Coghill has the education or
facilities to make an informed judgment on the matter.

You appear to have accepted this report uncritically. When
considering how accurate your judgment is likely to be the fact you
believe in the presence of aliens amongst the general population and
mass mind control is relevant.

Challenging unsupported, ill informed assertions is not argumentum ad
hominem. Pointing out that the person who made the statements stands
to benefit financially from the publicity by increased their sales of
snake oil nostrums is not argumentum ad hominem but fact.

I note you have not addressed the substance of the article at all.