Re: David Talbot lies again

In <3rdekn$muo@covina.lightside.com> dlt@lightside.com (David Talbot) writes: >In article <3raes6$cin@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>In article <3raes6$cin@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, > sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) wrote:
> sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) wrote: >>while i consider my religious views to be wholly irrelevant to the
>>while i consider my religious views to be wholly irrelevant to the >>topic at hand, i will, for the record, state that i adhere to no
>>topic at hand, i will, for the record, state that i adhere to no >>formal religion or system of religious doctrine. i have no "god".
>>formal religion or system of religious doctrine. i have no "god". >Ergo you are materialistic.
>Ergo you are materialistic. This is not necessarily true. Scott's statement would fit either an athiest or an agnostic. The difference would depend upon whether or not Scott is willing to accept the concept of a greater being; agnostics do not know whether or not there is a God, but they don't think that any god posited by existing religious systems exists.

>I'm not surprised. However when I asked what is your "God" I didn't
>I'm not surprised. However when I asked what is your "God" I didn't >mean only a religious God.
>mean only a religious God. I thought that your training was supposed to enable you to communicate with exceptional clarity...? Moreover, if the discussion was about religion, then would your question not imply the religious sense of God, rather than the seldom-used sense of "a person or thing of supreme value"?

Perhaps you might want to stick to forming arugments from concepts, instead of trying to switch definitions in mid-stream to shore up an ill-formed statement. This current tactic does not enhance your credibility.

>Many people consider money to be their "god", others consider it to be sex,
>Many people consider money to be their "god", others consider it to be sex, >and so on.
>and so on. The question remains, what do you consider to be your "god," then? Do you have a "god" in the non-ecclesiastic sense?

>I'm wondering why these manufacturers have never sued. If all is slander
>I'm wondering why these manufacturers have never sued. If all is slander >it would be so easy to defeat CCHR. These companies deal with tons of billions
>it would be so easy to defeat CCHR. These companies deal with tons of billions >of dollars, why are they holding back?
>of dollars, why are they holding back? Well, see, CCHR really hasn't managed to do much besides make itself look bad. The CCHR poster to alt.support.attn-deficit got himself roundly trounced by the posters there, when it turned out that his claims were utterly unfounded. In fact, the few verifiable scientific sources cited by the CCHR Ritalin warning turned out to be completely out of context. While the studies cited detailed a handful of unusual reactions to the drug, none of them made any claim that the drug was any more dangerous than any other chemical substance, such as caffiene or nicotine.

Why sue someone for false claims when the entity making the claims is so obviously and transparently full of excrement? Better to let the claims themselves to the work -- CCHR dug its own grave on a.s.attn-deficit. Unfortunately, CCHR never read up on ADHD to learn that the name of the disorder is inaccurate: ADHD people are pretty good at picking out the fine details and paying attention to unusual things.

>>i never endorsed ritalin; i stated that it is one of the best-studed
>>i never endorsed ritalin; i stated that it is one of the best-studed >>psychoactive drugs on the market. this is a statement, not an
>>psychoactive drugs on the market. this is a statement, not an >>endorsement.
>>endorsement. >Yet I would never give Ritalin or any other psych-drug to my children.
>Yet I would never give Ritalin or any other psych-drug to my children. And I would never give anything written by, approved by, recommended by, or derived from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. Both statements, however, are purely personal opinion and hardly form a convincing argument for the efficacy of either treatment.

Mr. Talbot, if you have any scientific, double-blind, peer-reviewed, medical, non-Scientology sources which offer conclusive proof that methylphenidate is summarily and intractibly detrimental to the health of those for whom it is prescribed, please post it here. Please do so in the APA standard citation format, so that I (and presumably others) may verify it in a neutral medical library or database. I remind you that the sources in the previously posted CCHR warning have already been refuted, in the same manner that Mr. Milne's selective quotations were shown to be extremely (dare I say it?) distorted. -- --Rob Levandowski Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]