Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: A (hopefully temporary) regression
Message-ID: <461@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 09:07:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.461
Posted: Fri Jun 21 09:07:52 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 06:34:11 EDT
References: <1002@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 48

In article <1002@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes:
>
>I have been following net.med for almost a year now, Mr Banks and Mr Bullard
>have just brought it to the lowest level I have ever seen it at.  I had hoped
>that we had a mutual respect for each other as intellegent people expressing
>opposing views for the benifit of all.  However, it seems that I am thought of
>as a total fool by the above pair.  Note their responce to statements by myself
>to which I offered references on request:
>
>
>>From Gordon Banks:
>>This is all utter nonsense.  I challenge you to provide even
>>one scientific study that substantiates any of the above points.
>>I'll look it up if it is in a regular refereed journal, but not if
>>it is in the Watchtower or some crank newsletter or book.
>
>It seems that Gordon will simply trash out any data that disagrees with his
>beliefs and Carter has a serious problem.  How can you know that I made this
>up?  It is information from the book "Life is a Flow" by Paul Brenn.  
>I will lower myself this time only long enough to call you a liar.
>
>I hope future discussions will remain on a higher level as befits intellegent
>people.  I apologize to others on the net for posting this non-med article.
>And I ask that in the future name-calling be sent to net.flame (I don't read
>that group).

I don't know how intelligent you are, but I think your reply, in addition
to your opinions calls into question your reality testing facility.
I never accused you of "making it up", in fact I was quite certain you
hadn't, since the same garbage is found in other spewings of similar ilk.
I challenged you to provide some data, instead of providing it, you
say it is clear I will trash it and gave the name of some book that
is not in the libraries around here.  Am I supposed to order the book?
Why should I believe what this man says any more than L. Ron Hubbard,
Mary Baker Eddy, or any other number of religio-medical theorists?
Any fool can write a book, how about some reference from scientific
literature?  Or alternatively, a summary about the materials and
methods (if any) of the cited research.  If you can't provide this,
what is the basis for the claims?  I can write and publish a book that
says anything I want, but if I expect anyone but fools to believe it
I have to give some data that justifies what I say.  Where is the data?
Our site can't post to net.flame or net.religion, but I agree that
this is where this discussion belongs, unless you are willing to
cite some scientific evidence for your peculiar claims.  It is
only on this basis that I can render objective criticisms, otherwise
we are stuck with name calling, so either respond to my challenge,
or let's just end it.